OT. The futures Bright, the Futures Brexit!!!

[Geoff Parkstone]

Actually, come to think of it, who does "own" the "room". Bloomer used to own it as I recall and had his stable of acolytes to help running it. Is Andy now the "owner" by default as the only moderator, or have we overthrown the monarchy and become a free running independent state?

[ramAnag]

I'm not sure we have the power to do that though ... It's not our house, we are but tenants and can't decide who the land agent is. Also how would we get the admin power button (or whatever it is) to pass on to someone else if Andy carks it or net equivalent?

So if he can't contact HQ as Bloomer used to call it, what makes you think mere subscribers could get anywhere?

Not much point in a memberless forum is there? So it is ‘our house’ really, but even in the time I’ve been on the forum I can remember five mods (including four simultaneous ones) and I’m sure you can remember more...must have been a way of contacting admin to make those changes.
Not sure what the big deal is. There were plenty of beefs with Rats but I don’t remember anything official. A few of us, you and I included,, moved to Bloomer’s site (Vit al Rams?), suddenly Rats was gone, the word ‘vi tal’ was banned and the next we knew Andy had taken over.
Seemed simple...the sky won’t fall in if MA is made a mod...honestly!

[Andy_Faber]

rA, not much earlier I said

My observation is there’s been one person banging on constantly about it...’.

To which you responded

If that refers to me it’s both untrue and unfair. Yes, I’ve mentioned it before but ‘banging on constantly’...absolutely untrue.

Since then you’ve commented on it three times. A fourth time might constitute banging on…

[Andy_Faber]

there is a difference between preaching and laying out the facts, now if those who choose wish to disregard the facts and maintain a fantasy well they can't expect sympathy, but I agree, any criticism should be couched in more respectful terms, so will endeavour to do that in future.

Gammon is a pejorative term not solely based on skin tone, though, more the florid faced older white person who moans about how fings ain't what they used to be!

Or this definition - Gammon is a pejorative popularised in British political culture since around 2012. The term refers in particular to the colour of a person's flushed face when expressing their strong opinions, as compared to the type of pork of the same name.

All that’s fine but the other part of my comment also applies, use of Gammon elsewhere on social media is an easy tactic to cover for the inability to argue rationally. You (gritted teeth compliment incoming) don’t need such cover. Nor use of ‘idiots’, I’m not sure anyone here would argue with ‘misguided’ and then the subject can be debated without rancour

[Andy_Faber]

A few of us, you and I included,, moved to Bloomer’s site (Vit al Rams?), suddenly Rats was gone, the word ‘vi tal’ was banned and the next we knew Andy had taken over.

Your memory fails you on this one, my appointment predated the vatil rams incident and as I recall it was you who suggested me

[ramAnag]

rA, not much earlier I said

My observation is there’s been one person banging on constantly about it...’.

To which you responded

If that refers to me it’s both untrue and unfair. Yes, I’ve mentioned it before but ‘banging on constantly’...absolutely untrue.

Since then you’ve commented on it three times. A fourth time might constitute banging on…

Can’t win can I? Twice I’ve responded to points raised by GP...a third time I’m replying to you. If I don’t I’ll be accused of ignoring people.
Seems you don’t like the idea and prefer total control rather than sharing the responsibility, so each time it’s raised it then gets promptly put on the ‘back burner’ because you ‘can’t contact admin’.
I’m not sure of your motivation and this isn’t me attacking you, but things clearly aren’t as they should be and an extra pair of eyes and ears might make all the difference.
Worth a try isn’t it...even on a trial basis?

[ramAnag]

Your memory fails you on this one, my appointment predated the vatil rams incident and as I recall it was you who suggested me

Suggested you? Not sure about that. Certainly didn’t nominate you if that’s what you mean but I did whole heartedly approve of your appointment which should tell you something.

As I remember it many of us had moved to Bloomer’s site in protest at Rats’ moderating style. You didn’t and then announced you were to be the new DCM mod. Still...it was all a long time ago and I’ve no idea how it was all done, but, at the time you were like a breath of fresh air. Doesn’t mean things don’t now need freshening up...new ideas, more support and all that.

[Andy_Faber]

Suggested you? Not sure about that. Certainly didn’t nominate you if that’s what you mean but I did whole heartedly approve of your appointment which should tell you something.

As I remember it many of us had moved to Bloomer’s site in protest at Rats’ moderating style. You didn’t and then announced you were to be the new DCM mod. Still...it was all a long time ago and I’ve no idea how it was all done, but, at the time you were like a breath of fresh air. Doesn’t mean things don’t now need freshening up...new ideas, more support and all that.

Please give it a rest rA I thought we were going through a bridge building phase

[Andy_Faber]

As there seems to be a lack of belief/trust regarding my actions/motives, here’s a redacted copy of the reply I got when I messaged admin earlier:

The following errors occurred with your submission

****** has chosen not to receive private messages or may not be allowed to receive private messages. Therefore you may not send your message to him/her.

If you are trying to send this message to multiple recipients, remove ****** from the recipient list and send the message again.

I’ve also emailed admin and not yet had a response

[ramAnag]

Please give it a rest rA I thought we were going through a bridge building phase

Sorry. All I’ve done is reply while trying to watch the Rugby League.

[ramAnag]

As there seems to be a lack of belief/trust regarding my actions/motives, here’s a redacted copy of the reply I got when I messaged admin earlier:

The following errors occurred with your submission

****** has chosen not to receive private messages or may not be allowed to receive private messages. Therefore you may not send your message to him/her.

If you are trying to send this message to multiple recipients, remove ****** from the recipient list and send the message again.

I’ve also emailed admin and not yet had a response

Okay...brand new day so let’s make some progress.

With respect that’s a slightly daft post AF.

As a piece of ‘authentication’ it’s rather less convincing than my old forged dental appointment cards to regularly get my 15 year old self out of an afternoon of double chemistry many years ago.

It’s also unnecessary. I don’t think anyone has doubted your honesty over this matter, although I also don’t think I’m alone in being puzzled by your motives.

That however isn’t the point, which has moved on slightly from the need for an additional level of moderation.

That question still stands of course, but the point GP stumbled across yesterday evening also raises questions of interest.
Who does ‘own’ the ‘room’ and if, as it would seem, ‘HQ’ seem to have adopted a sort of ‘absentee landlord’ role who is ultimately responsible?
Have you effectively been left ‘high and dry’ by the ‘owners’ or are you now actually the sole controller?

[Geoff Parkstone]

Okay...brand new day so let’s make some progress.

With respect that’s a slightly daft post AF.

As a piece of ‘authentication’ it’s rather less convincing than my old forged dental appointment cards to regularly get my 15 year old self out of an afternoon of double chemistry many years ago.

It’s also unnecessary. I don’t think anyone has doubted your honesty over this matter, although I also don’t think I’m alone in being puzzled by your motives.

That however isn’t the point, which has moved on slightly from the need for an additional level of moderation.

That question still stands of course, but the point GP stumbled across yesterday evening also raises questions of interest.
Who does ‘own’ the ‘room’ and if, as it would seem, ‘HQ’ seem to have adopted a sort of ‘absentee landlord’ role who is ultimately responsible?
Have you effectively been left ‘high and dry’ by the ‘owners’ or are you now actually the sole controller?

I don't stumble across things, I'm deeply analytical 😄😄

[Andy_Faber]

End of subject from me and any further posts will be considered off topic/thread hijacking

[ramAnag]

I don't stumble across things, I'm deeply analytical ����

Sorry...of course you are.

[ramAnag]

End of subject from me and any further posts will be considered off topic/thread hijacking

Oops. Guess that means ‘sole controller’ then.