General Chat

I know this is a duplicate posting but people may not go onto suggestion.

I have just thought of this.

Leave the RR button but if someone wants to RR a post they will have to state their reason posted on the thread using a simple adjustment in the coding.

So: you press RR and a reply box comes up which will be posted on the thread. You can then say "I found that to contravene the T & Cs because ????" or "the post compromised my security" or "that statement is untrue".

Maybe that would stop vindictive RRs because their name would appear in the reply box.

Please put me right if you think the idea is unworkable for whatever reason.

Sounds like a good idea Sue but I can't see GR going for it because they seem to always want to protect the person who RRs.

I still think we'd be none the wiser as they'd just use another free account with a made up name.

They HAVE to stop non payers being able to RR..nothing will change til that happens.

appears GR thinks we're ok to moderate on their behalf when it suits...but not in the case of being able to suss a breach of privacy or info....daft !!!

We are in a catch 22 here and who is suffering? Certainly not the vindictive RRers.

There must be a solution, you are all intelligent people sling in your suggestions.

I agree that non payers should not be able to 'report' via the boards, a message to 'abuse' is more than adequate if someone who is no longer a paying member sees their name mentioned unpleasantly or as a breach of privacy.

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.

Good idea Sue, but l agree with Muffy and AnnG

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 ;-)

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.

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 .

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.

Thanks for replies, please keep adding.

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

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?

oops lol what Gwynne said :-D

So my idea doesn't appeal then ?


:-D

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. ;-)

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.

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.

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.

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.