Eh, where's the threads going?
01 February 2008, 05:28 PM
#31
its amazing how those with absolutely no idea what it takes to run a forum of this size are the ones who think they've got all the answers.
Its so obvious when you're clueless!
NOT ONE SINGLE REPORT TO MODERATOR to say this thread should be deleted.
Hence, we don't see the need to read it. Just because you find it interesting doesn't mean we do, and the difference is.. WE'RE ACTUALLY WORKING when you're just reading what's interesting to you. So we do our work, which includes looking at anything that has been reported to us.
That doesn't leave a lot of time to read 16 page threads to see if there is anything dodgy in it.
But of course, instead, we did it all on purpose for some weird reason.
Its so obvious when you're clueless!
NOT ONE SINGLE REPORT TO MODERATOR to say this thread should be deleted.
Hence, we don't see the need to read it. Just because you find it interesting doesn't mean we do, and the difference is.. WE'RE ACTUALLY WORKING when you're just reading what's interesting to you. So we do our work, which includes looking at anything that has been reported to us.
That doesn't leave a lot of time to read 16 page threads to see if there is anything dodgy in it.
But of course, instead, we did it all on purpose for some weird reason.
01 February 2008, 05:33 PM
#32
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Jun 2007
Posts: 102
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
What I find particularly ironic it that the mods allow 17 pages and nearly a 2 month witch hunt and plead ignorance,
I quote webmaster-
“We're not mind readers + It isn't fair to slag us off when we had no knowledge of this thread in the first place.”
How can this be so when
1.This thread was one on the hottest topics for 17 pages and 2 months
2.A mod did threaten to close it when Zen (a paying contributor, surprise surprise) was wrongly accused of being the garage in question. – so the mod team WERE AWARE.
Again when webby states “no knowledge of that thread” it seems strange that when a thread questioning the integrity of the admin staff and whether there is one rule for paying contributors and another for non paying that thread runs precisely for 2 days before a terse response is issued and the thread is locked.
Seems their on the ball when their own actions are questioned!!!!!!
I quote webmaster-
“We're not mind readers + It isn't fair to slag us off when we had no knowledge of this thread in the first place.”
How can this be so when
1.This thread was one on the hottest topics for 17 pages and 2 months
2.A mod did threaten to close it when Zen (a paying contributor, surprise surprise) was wrongly accused of being the garage in question. – so the mod team WERE AWARE.
Again when webby states “no knowledge of that thread” it seems strange that when a thread questioning the integrity of the admin staff and whether there is one rule for paying contributors and another for non paying that thread runs precisely for 2 days before a terse response is issued and the thread is locked.
Seems their on the ball when their own actions are questioned!!!!!!
01 February 2008, 05:38 PM
#33
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Jun 2007
Posts: 102
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Surely the moderation of the website and your duty of care as moderators extends beyond what a single individual might find offensive? or are you saying the moderation relies completely and utterly on the reporting by individuals?
01 February 2008, 05:39 PM
#34
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: type-r-ra
Posts: 3,890
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Wow Webby got his knickers in a twist now. Ok ive changed my Profile
The above Post says it all, can you honestly say not you or your Minions saw that thread that ran for nearly 2 weeks and 20 odd pages!!!! Get real.As ive said if it had been an Authorised Sponsor it would have been deleted. Funny once the word Libel was banded about one thread disapears and one is locked
The above Post says it all, can you honestly say not you or your Minions saw that thread that ran for nearly 2 weeks and 20 odd pages!!!! Get real.As ive said if it had been an Authorised Sponsor it would have been deleted. Funny once the word Libel was banded about one thread disapears and one is locked
01 February 2008, 05:52 PM
#35
Moderator
iTrader: (4)
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: The Terry Crews of moderation. P P P P P P POWER!!
Posts: 18,687
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Would that be any surprise- you want to pay the court costs to defend SN should someone decide that they don't particularly want the good name of their business tarnished by an internet lynch mob?
As for the "it would have been banned had it been a sponsor" argument. Well, come on, now it's you who needs to get real surely?
I can thnk of numerous examples where other sponsors on here (I'm not naming names for obvious reasons) have had their critics and those threads have remained open.
What would a sponsor be saying about themselves if they used their position to get webby to vape a perfectly valid post about them just because it wasn't singing their praises??
The simple truth is often the people that post have only themselves to blame for these threads getting removed. If comment is kept fair and reasonable, then webby doesn't have to intervene and threads stay open. When people start ranting, backs get put out of shape and threats of legal action become more likely. Webby can't allow this.
Do a search for many of the companies prominently featured on SN I think you'll find not all posts are positive as many of the SN armchair critics on here seem to be implying!
Ns04
01 February 2008, 05:59 PM
#36
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: type-r-ra
Posts: 3,890
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Would that be any surprise- you want to pay the court costs to defend SN should someone decide that they don't particularly want the good name of their business tarnished by an internet lynch mob?
As for the "it would have been banned had it been a sponsor" argument. Well, come on, now it's you who needs to get real surely?
I can thnk of numerous examples where other sponsors on here (I'm not naming names for obvious reasons) have had their critics and those threads have remained open.
What would a sponsor be saying about themselves if they used their position to get webby to vape a perfectly valid post about them just because it wasn't singing their praises??
The simple truth is often the people that post have only themselves to blame for these threads getting removed. If comment is kept fair and reasonable, then webby doesn't have to intervene and threads stay open. When people start ranting, backs get put out of shape and threats of legal action become more likely. Webby can't allow this.
Do a search for many of the companies prominently featured on SN I think you'll find not all posts are positive as many of the SN armchair critics on here seem to be implying!
Ns04
As for the "it would have been banned had it been a sponsor" argument. Well, come on, now it's you who needs to get real surely?
I can thnk of numerous examples where other sponsors on here (I'm not naming names for obvious reasons) have had their critics and those threads have remained open.
What would a sponsor be saying about themselves if they used their position to get webby to vape a perfectly valid post about them just because it wasn't singing their praises??
The simple truth is often the people that post have only themselves to blame for these threads getting removed. If comment is kept fair and reasonable, then webby doesn't have to intervene and threads stay open. When people start ranting, backs get put out of shape and threats of legal action become more likely. Webby can't allow this.
Do a search for many of the companies prominently featured on SN I think you'll find not all posts are positive as many of the SN armchair critics on here seem to be implying!
Ns04
Do you really believe that? A paying Sponsor getting ripped to shreds on here and them letting it go on
please."I can thnk of numerous examples where other sponsors on here (I'm not naming names for obvious reasons) have had their critics and those threads have remained open."
Im all for a 2 way argument this was a one way mauling. Len wasnt informed until page 19.
"What would a sponsor be saying about themselves if they used their position to get webby to vape a perfectly valid post about them just because it wasn't singing their praises??"
Your missing the point.
01 February 2008, 06:11 PM
#37
Scooby Regular
Join Date: May 2004
Location: Ascended to the next level
Posts: 7,498
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Wow Webby got his knickers in a twist now. Ok ive changed my Profile The above Post says it all, can you honestly say not you or your Minions saw that thread that ran for nearly 2 weeks and 20 odd pages!!!! Get real.As ive said if it had been an Authorised Sponsor it would have been deleted. Funny once the word Libel was banded about one thread disapears and one is locked
The above Post says it all, can you honestly say not you or your Minions saw that thread that ran for nearly 2 weeks and 20 odd pages!!!! Get real.As ive said if it had been an Authorised Sponsor it would have been deleted. Funny once the word Libel was banded about one thread disapears and one is lockedIf anything, a thread of that length in the general section certainly needs a glance every now and again.
It was obvious what route the thread was heading from page 3 onwards.
I was actually suprised it didn't vaped after the point that the thread was going to be used for naming a shaming.
And the users aren't going to report that - because they are a right nosey bunch!
01 February 2008, 06:18 PM
#38
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Jun 2007
Posts: 102
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
If anything, a thread of that length in the general section certainly needs a glance every now and again.
It was obvious what route the thread was heading from page 3 onwards.
I was actually suprised it didn't vaped after the point that the thread was going to be used for naming a shaming.
And the users aren't going to report that - because they are a right nosey bunch!
It was obvious what route the thread was heading from page 3 onwards.
I was actually suprised it didn't vaped after the point that the thread was going to be used for naming a shaming.
And the users aren't going to report that - because they are a right nosey bunch!
Think you just reinforced what i said... fair point well made
01 February 2008, 06:23 PM
#39
Moderator
iTrader: (4)
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: The Terry Crews of moderation. P P P P P P POWER!!
Posts: 18,687
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
"As for the "it would have been banned had it been a sponsor" argument. Well, come on, now it's you who needs to get real surely?"
Do you really believe that? A paying Sponsor getting ripped to shreds on here and them letting it go on please.
"I can thnk of numerous examples where other sponsors on here (I'm not naming names for obvious reasons) have had their critics and those threads have remained open."
Im all for a 2 way argument this was a one way mauling. Len wasnt informed until page 19.
"What would a sponsor be saying about themselves if they used their position to get webby to vape a perfectly valid post about them just because it wasn't singing their praises??"
Your missing the point.
Do you really believe that? A paying Sponsor getting ripped to shreds on here and them letting it go on
please."I can thnk of numerous examples where other sponsors on here (I'm not naming names for obvious reasons) have had their critics and those threads have remained open."
Im all for a 2 way argument this was a one way mauling. Len wasnt informed until page 19.
"What would a sponsor be saying about themselves if they used their position to get webby to vape a perfectly valid post about them just because it wasn't singing their praises??"
Your missing the point.
Youur argument is that the webby will not allow a negative thread against a sponsor as they will effectively say: vape the thread or you loose our busines?
Think about that for a moment:
1) A sponsor gets a bad review on a thread in which someone reports just the facts, no ranting, no insults, just the facts. Webby deletes, no explanation from either the offending garage or webby. People WOULD most probably arrive at the conclusion that you've stated. That would NOT look good for the garage and do them more harm than if they had done what Len rightly did and said: look this is very unfortunate, and for our part in it, we're sorry. Len got a lot of support on that thread after that. He also got questions asked, rightly IMHO, about issues such as courtesy cars etc...
The thread wasn't vaped before then as no-one had raised a reason, legal or otherwise for it to be vaped! When libel was mentioned, action had to be taken, it's nothing to do with whether someone is a sponsor or not: SN can't afford to become involved in legal disputes. If anything has SN over a barrel it's this, not sponsors!!!
2) Do you know the nature of the contract between webby and the advertisers? I would suggest that neither party can just "sulk" and withdraw from the contract without a period of notice and without a good legal reason
3) Len was not slated for 17 pages without knowing about it at all: how can someone be slated when no-one knows what individual the thread pertains to? Sometimes webby can't win, if he'd stepped in before and vaped that thread the, "Can't say anything on SN" crowd would have been out, followed by a chorus of...."What's the point in talking about third parties if you are only allowed to report the good stuff".
4) even if you're 100% right and webby would put the dough needed to sponsor SN before integrity. You're using HIS site right now because HE created it and, with the help of the mods HIS business decisions have turned it into the success it has become.
Think about that for a moment.
Last edited by New_scooby_04; 01 February 2008 at 06:27 PM.
lol
01 February 2008, 07:01 PM
#43
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Oct 2004
Posts: 478
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
i was hoping for something a little more informative than
webmaster quote - "Its so obvious when you're clueless!"
hardly setting an example
Is it too much to admit that an error may have been made - or admin beyond making mistakes.
My point is that the mod that threatened to vape after Zen was mentioned perhaps should have taken a view on the witchunt that was ensuing, or did their curiosity to find out who the garage was cloud their judgement.
webmaster quote - "Its so obvious when you're clueless!"
hardly setting an example
Is it too much to admit that an error may have been made - or admin beyond making mistakes.
My point is that the mod that threatened to vape after Zen was mentioned perhaps should have taken a view on the witchunt that was ensuing, or did their curiosity to find out who the garage was cloud their judgement.
01 February 2008, 07:06 PM
#45
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Jun 2007
Posts: 102
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
01 February 2008, 07:08 PM
#46
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: *R.I.P Heccers.. its been a blast!
Posts: 19,965
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
i was hoping for something a little more informative than
webmaster quote - "Its so obvious when you're clueless!"
hardly setting an example
Is it too much to admit that an error may have been made - or admin beyond making mistakes.
My point is that the mod that threatened to vape after Zen was mentioned perhaps should have taken a view on the witchunt that was ensuing, or did their curiosity to find out who the garage was cloud their judgement.
webmaster quote - "Its so obvious when you're clueless!"
hardly setting an example
Is it too much to admit that an error may have been made - or admin beyond making mistakes.
My point is that the mod that threatened to vape after Zen was mentioned perhaps should have taken a view on the witchunt that was ensuing, or did their curiosity to find out who the garage was cloud their judgement.
but this aint Ancient China, is it?!?!?!?!
01 February 2008, 07:09 PM
#48
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: type-r-ra
Posts: 3,890
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
01 February 2008, 07:23 PM
#50
01 February 2008, 07:31 PM
#51
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Jun 2007
Posts: 102
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Many others are however interested in this thread and i guess its going to continue regardless of your pointless comments.
i thought it was boring you.
01 February 2008, 08:02 PM
#57
lmao
Am I?
Youur argument is that the webby will not allow a negative thread against a sponsor as they will effectively say: vape the thread or you loose our busines?
Think about that for a moment:
1) A sponsor gets a bad review on a thread in which someone reports just the facts, no ranting, no insults, just the facts. Webby deletes, no explanation from either the offending garage or webby. People WOULD most probably arrive at the conclusion that you've stated. That would NOT look good for the garage and do them more harm than if they had done what Len rightly did and said: look this is very unfortunate, and for our part in it, we're sorry. Len got a lot of support on that thread after that. He also got questions asked, rightly IMHO, about issues such as courtesy cars etc...
The thread wasn't vaped before then as no-one had raised a reason, legal or otherwise for it to be vaped! When libel was mentioned, action had to be taken, it's nothing to do with whether someone is a sponsor or not: SN can't afford to become involved in legal disputes. If anything has SN over a barrel it's this, not sponsors!!!
2) Do you know the nature of the contract between webby and the advertisers? I would suggest that neither party can just "sulk" and withdraw from the contract without a period of notice and without a good legal reason
3) Len was not slated for 17 pages without knowing about it at all: how can someone be slated when no-one knows what individual the thread pertains to? Sometimes webby can't win, if he'd stepped in before and vaped that thread the, "Can't say anything on SN" crowd would have been out, followed by a chorus of...."What's the point in talking about third parties if you are only allowed to report the good stuff".
4) even if you're 100% right and webby would put the dough needed to sponsor SN before integrity. You're using HIS site right now because HE created it and, with the help of the mods HIS business decisions have turned it into the success it has become.
Think about that for a moment.
Youur argument is that the webby will not allow a negative thread against a sponsor as they will effectively say: vape the thread or you loose our busines?
Think about that for a moment:
1) A sponsor gets a bad review on a thread in which someone reports just the facts, no ranting, no insults, just the facts. Webby deletes, no explanation from either the offending garage or webby. People WOULD most probably arrive at the conclusion that you've stated. That would NOT look good for the garage and do them more harm than if they had done what Len rightly did and said: look this is very unfortunate, and for our part in it, we're sorry. Len got a lot of support on that thread after that. He also got questions asked, rightly IMHO, about issues such as courtesy cars etc...
The thread wasn't vaped before then as no-one had raised a reason, legal or otherwise for it to be vaped! When libel was mentioned, action had to be taken, it's nothing to do with whether someone is a sponsor or not: SN can't afford to become involved in legal disputes. If anything has SN over a barrel it's this, not sponsors!!!
2) Do you know the nature of the contract between webby and the advertisers? I would suggest that neither party can just "sulk" and withdraw from the contract without a period of notice and without a good legal reason
3) Len was not slated for 17 pages without knowing about it at all: how can someone be slated when no-one knows what individual the thread pertains to? Sometimes webby can't win, if he'd stepped in before and vaped that thread the, "Can't say anything on SN" crowd would have been out, followed by a chorus of...."What's the point in talking about third parties if you are only allowed to report the good stuff".
4) even if you're 100% right and webby would put the dough needed to sponsor SN before integrity. You're using HIS site right now because HE created it and, with the help of the mods HIS business decisions have turned it into the success it has become.
Think about that for a moment.
