Genuine Question to the Mods

[wellquickwoody]

If I recall correctly, starting a thread about another poster on NSC is frowned upon so I will not type the username at least.

On the thread about the tragic shooting of a serving MP Jo Cox one particular poster has made repeated attempts to score political points. I and many others have found this extremely distasteful. Many have posted that this user should desist from doing this, told him/her to 'do one' (not always politely), or take a break from posting for a short time. I personally have reported the comments by this user on this thread so the mods should be aware of the general consensus of most concerning these posts.

Now this morning I see that the same poster has been posting more comments overnight which seem to designed to apportion blame and take the political high ground. Is it not possible to at least invoke the banning option which would stop this person's access to this individual thread? It is logistically possible, so why has it not been done?

 

[daveinprague]

For repeating, as did others, what has been reported in the media?
Genuine question.

 

[Simster]

For repeating, as did others, what has been reported in the media?
Genuine question.

Not really. The final sentence in the post the OP is referring to was little more than opportunistic embellishment. crass and distasteful for such a thread. Surely even you can see that?

Regardless, I have two things to say on the matter. Firstly, I've too have had enough of the childish goon responsible. He's getting on everyone's tuts now. Secondly, that issue alone seems an odd one to feel offended by. You can't ban people for that alone. But really who would miss that bloke if he was banned by the mods?

 

[daveinprague]

Maybe not by some, but he didnt really say anything that the media isnt reporting. People will speculate.

 

[Bold Seagull]

No worse or better than what was being said on the Orlando thread. The board attracts people who don't know when to stop, or never stop.

 

[Blue Valkyrie]

Haven't read the thread and no idea who is being referred to but surely banning them from such a sensitive thread is a sensible approach.

 

[Chicken Run]

Would I be right in thinking that the poster in question here starts many weird posts?

 

[wellquickwoody]

Would I be right in thinking that the poster in question here starts many weird posts?

Yep.

 

[wellquickwoody]

For repeating, as did others, what has been reported in the media?
Genuine question.

He is REPEATEDLY making these comments not to inform, but to influence others. Distasteful on that particular thread.

 

[fat old seagull]

Haven't read the thread and no idea who is being referred to but surely banning them from such a sensitive thread is a sensible approach.

I also haven't read the thread. And haven't a clue what it's content is. I love using, enjoying, learning and laughing at fellow posters experiences. But IMO if there's anything that drags NSC down its 'pointless political threads'. There cannot be a single person who has read them that has changed their political stance. I try to avoid them now, as they do little to add any pleasantness to my demeanour.
If it wasn't for the reasonable line taken that the forum thrives on Free Speech (within decency guidelines) I'd wish that political threads were put in Room 101.

ps...Vote Monster Raving Loony Party

 

[Billy the Fish]

Maybe not by some, but he didnt really say anything that the media isnt reporting. People will speculate.

They will, but they should take notice when the rest of the forum is telling them to bloody well stop it because a fellow human being has been murdered and most of us are finding their comments unpleasant.

 

[pocketseagull]

A few people on this board will use tragic events to spread their message of hate against muslims, but speculation for a motive in this tragic murder is beyond the pale?

This blog is worth a read:

http://blogs.spectator.co.uk/2016/06/a-day-of-infamy/

 

[Deleted member 22389]

I got a simple solution to the person in question, don't reply to any of the posts.

 

[hans kraay fan club]

A few people on this board will use tragic events to spread their message of hate against muslims, but speculation for a motive in this tragic murder is beyond the pale?

This is the sole reason I did not ban the poster in question from that thread. Much as I've been tempted, I would never ban one of our resident right-wingers when they jump in to push their anti-muslim agenda on any thread about an incident - the Orlando one a perfect example. If I did, it would rightly be decried as censorship - of using ones position as a moderator, to unfairly steer debate. The thread in question here - much as the poster's comments were out of place, it was not my / our place to intervene.

I got a simple solution to the person in question, don't reply to any of the posts.

Putting the dullard on permanent ignore is an attractive option open to all (except us mods).

 

[Goldstone1976]

This is the sole reason I did not ban the poster in question from that thread. Much as I've been tempted, I would never ban one of our resident right-wingers when they jump in to push their anti-muslim agenda on any thread about an incident - the Orlando one a perfect example. If I did, it would rightly be decried as censorship - of using ones position as a moderator, to unfairly steer debate. The thread in question here - much as the poster's comments were out of place, it was not my / our place to intervene.

Putting the dullard on permanent ignore is an attractive option open to all (except us mods).

This is the same view, formed for the same reasons, that I have expressed within the thread in question.

 

[8ace]

Putting the dullard on permanent ignore is an attractive option open to all (except us mods).

It's a shame there's not a way to ignore whole threads.

 

[hans kraay fan club]

It's a shame there's not a way to ignore whole threads.

By not clicking on them?

 

[tinycowboy]

This is the sole reason I did not ban the poster in question from that thread. Much as I've been tempted, I would never ban one of our resident right-wingers when they jump in to push their anti-muslim agenda on any thread about an incident - the Orlando one a perfect example. If I did, it would rightly be decried as censorship - of using ones position as a moderator, to unfairly steer debate. The thread in question here - much as the poster's comments were out of place, it was not my / our place to intervene.

Putting the dullard on permanent ignore is an attractive option open to all (except us mods).

Totally agree with this - there are inappropriate comments on that thread from a number of posters with different agendas. Censorship, if desirable, would require evenhandedness and objectivity rather than just cherry-picking those who are diametrically opposed to your views. Pointless and crass political posturing on either side is depressing to read, but that seems to be the level of politics extolled by some of our most prominent politicians at the moment, encouraged by some of the mainstream media.

 

[looney]

After a hard days moderating [MENTION=3649]hitony[/MENTION], El Presidente and Hans kraay fan club meet up and go for a beer......

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aaGX4JdtQi8

 

[The Andy Naylor Fan Club]

It's a shame there's not a way to ignore whole threads.

By not clicking on them?