Girls in... threads and the lack of reasonable moderation

velocestrapture

Eric Cartman wrote:

Ive looked at and posted on a couple of the girls in... threads (I even posted a photo of my girlfriend in one - she liked the replies and didnt find it insulting or demeaning it was her idea) and appreciating a bit of boob or butt does not make you a misogynist nor should it be seen as demeaning or insulting to women (or men). They are threads for sharing beauty and positivity, the equivalent of posting photos of buttercups, rainbows and candy floss. If you find this to be hateful and demeaning it says more about you that those that participate.

Anyway most of what is posted is no more explicit than an Assos advert that the magazines will happily run. There are also hundreds of photos of men (and some women) in these mags wearing skin tight lycra in these magazines too. It is a scandal!

Buttercups, rainbows and candyfloss/ women? Spot the difference. Therin lies the problem.

velocestrapture

MattC59 wrote:

msmancunia wrote:

I have to say that Girls in Realistic Situations has offended me the most.

I'm not suprised to be honest, there are one or two which made me raise an eyebrow and think 'The Mods will be along in a minute', but I admit they didn't offend me.

Either way, don't tar us all with the same brush........... purleeeeeze.

The trouble is, that some men have very negative attitudes to women, and display their misogynist attitudes by posting derogatory comments and images against women; some other men post very similar images and comments but of course don't mean any harm to women and any comments are of course meant in a humorous way and aren't really reflective of their actual attitude to women, as in reality they are very respectful of women.

Well, to be honest, why should women have to expend the risk and energy in distinguishing the two? You may actually be the most fair-minded, respectful and genuine guy going, but if you behave like a twat and don't take care to demonstrate in your actual behaviour that you are not, why should any women take care to draw the distinction? If you are not part of the solution, you are part of the problem. Women have enough on their plates looking out for the misogynists who present as nice guys, without having to identify the nice guys who display (ironically, of course) misogynist behaviour.

velocestrapture

MattC59 wrote:

Eric Cartman wrote:

Anyway most of what is posted is no more explicit than an Assos advert that the magazines will happily run.

That's a good point.

Oh well, everyone's at it. That must mean it is ok.

jonny_trousers

Right! Only just caught up with this one and should probably step away, but as opinion is being canvassed that may have a bearing on the future of the forums... I'll try to be respectful, but it does make me smile that the one person responsible for striking a blow for extreme feminism on this site is the horniest little boy on the Commuting Chat forum, but anyway.

With only one or two exceptions, this whole issue strikes me as busy-bodying. So a bunch of blokes like looking at pictures of semi-naked girls in a tiny, little corner of the website where most of the moaners aren't interested in visiting anyway, big deal! Despite the fact that I think she is unbelievably misguided, I can at least respect Veloswhatsit's standpoint as she truly believes those pictures are harmful to womenkind (they're not really). Everyone else who has jumped on the moaning bandwagon is a bit, "Ooh well it is a bit creepy." "I once went in there and I didn't like it." "What if a thirteen-year-old stumbled in?" "It's not really suitable for a place like this," "Think about those poor, delicate little flowers of ladies who thought they were going somewhere to talk about Pashleys and scones only to be presented with a pair of baps!" Get a grip people!

So you wandered into Cakestop and decided you didn't like it. Great! Move on! Don't moan about it! If your conviction really is so strong that you feel the need to change how this place is run then complain to the mods; you've always had that option, yet hardly any of you have ever used it.

Apart from anything, none of our opinions actually matter. Web forums, such as this one, are not democracies. They are privately owned and providing the law is not being broken, which in this case it is not, the site owners can do whatever the hell they want. Sure, we have the option to show our displeasure with our feet, so by all means rise up and go find a web forum that appeals more to your personal tastes, but I doubt very much that Bike Radar will even notice you're gone.

My opinion on what should be done? For a while I was ready to agree with the idea of creating another forum where it was made more obvious that there was a locker room vibe within, but bollocks to that! Cakestop looks to have been ticking along just fine until a busybody from Commuting Chat decided to stir the pot and a small number of other people agreed that they generally found such pictures unpleasant, without ever really needing or trying to spend time in that forum in the first place.

Mods: it's a storm-in-a-DDD-cup. Ignore it, it will go away, and the number of hits BR receives will not alter one jot.

shouldbeinbed

interesting debate,can I suggest lopping the ends off the bell curve of opinions expressed. There's clearly people uncomfortable with the titillating & increasingly rude tone of these threads so 'fark off' isn't appropriate, but neither is the insinuation that anyone visiting cake stop is a deviant or has a raised potential for sexual violence. There's some deep seated personal opinions bordering on prejudices leaking over the top of an otherwise reasoned debate.

Also bringing in hard core porn and bukakke references isn't helpful as its a very long sliding scale from Liz Hatch in her kit to the latter more page 3 nude than 'in lycra' offerings to pictures someone in the middle of a circle jerk just after the explosive moment. No idea about most of the other Girl in.... threads & have very infrequently dipped into the lycra one, more out of its been going how long??? curiousity than rapacious perverted thrill seeking.

I'm confused more than anything why the original thread was even started if 'why no swearing' is genuinely the motivation, given we can all work round the auto filter with ease on that one. Not to single him out but as the author of these threads, ddd got F. U. C. K. OFF into a thread, I managed dickhead in the same one, there's plenty of @rse's and c0cks etc even the occasional c**t. (sliding scale again - stars for THAT word, no simple substitutions there!)

So whilst there is a small undertone of all men are.... prejudice & whilst its equally clear that the girls in... threads have reached the end of their shelf life, people will get round whatever checks are put in place as I have with the naughty words and if we end up with overt moderation or bowing to pressure from the extreme viewpoints at either end, we will see the forum shrivel dramatically as it either becomes a behind closed doors lads club free for all or deathly dull procession of what: bike, tyres, saddle, colour socks in May if its a bit rainy on a Tuesday... threads.

I found the public sector bashing through most of last year ill informed and obnoxious in many parts, I argued the point in the particular threads- Ladies & Greg & DDD (as the 2 standout guys anti 'girls in...' in this thread) have any of you expressed your discomfort at the content in the threads themselves - as per Gregs(?) example of rowdy people on a train self moderating once they realise they're causing upset or offence. That might have been a better starting point than these threads, then prompting a separate debate such as this if that failed. It is a bit unfair to vilify people in quite so strong terms as has been bandied about here if you have not challenged them directly & given them the opportunity to understand your feelings & that a line has been crossed. (by the sounds of it, that should be obvious with some images but as 'in lycra' has crept more explicit so subsequent ones will have that level as the start point) but peeing & doggy style pics, WTF! I'm happy not to have seen them & don't plan on going looking.

But at the end of the day, we're not a democracy here, we're accepted guests of an owner & staff, we don't actually have any more rights to dictate content to the admins and mods than Fred Bloggs in row Z at Old Trafford has the right to dictate to Alex Ferguson who plays in the Manchester United team this weekend.

msmancunia

Morning guys

I know I've been tarring you all with the same brush - purposfully, I have to admit. Do none of you see the hypocrisy in your complaint? I complain about the realistic situations thread which is all about nagging, cooking, girls on their knees, cleaning, hoovering, sat on the loo, shopping, chained to the kitchen sink, calling women bints, munters, etc - what does this say about your opinion of women? Saying that we're all into rainbows, buttercups and candyfloss is just a trolling patronising comment which goes to show that some of you are still living in the stone age.

Don't get me wrong - moaning about women is as old as the hills - the wonderful Les Dawson practically built a career out of it, but there's a line that's been crossed in that thread where some of the posts are nasty and vindictive. One thing that's blatently obvious in that thread is that someone called Aggieboy definitely isn't getting any. My word, that boy must have hairy palms.

You're right, this site isn't a democracy, but it does have terms and conditions. The T's and C's state that the forum is self-moderating, which is fair enough. But it also says that people shouldn't post topics that are defamatory in terms of race, gender, religion etc, which I think the Girls in... threads do cross sometimes. Furthermore, it also says that you should only post a photo where you own the copyright. I hardly think that you guys have got those women in your bedrooms to take photos of.

I do think this;

If its OK going out on pre 9pm TV - its OK
If its OK for viewing at work - its OK
If it fits with the U rating provided for FIlm categorisation - its OK

is a good place to start. I'd also add that maybe don't post a picture unless you're the copyright owner, because otherwise it gets the site into trouble, and you'd possibly get sued because I doubt BR would want to take the flack over something that you'd posted.

msmancunia

T.M.H.N.E.T wrote:

ps:Why is there a womens section yet no equivalent defined area for men?[/quote]

No idea - it's women's MTB so I don't go in there cos I'm road. Looking at the first ten or so pages though, I'd assume that it's for women to get women-specific advice that they've not got from elsewhere on the site, or men to get advice on buying bikes for their other halves - there's no Boys in.... threads that I can see, or threads on rainbows, flowers, periods, breastfeeding or vaginal prolapses for that matter. Maybe it's been set up because the general MTB forums aren't women-friendly enough, who knows?

msmancunia

Cornerblock wrote:

Well as one of the people who has posted an image that has been deemed inappropriate, I felt I should respond. If only one person had mentioned the image as being one of those that was deemed offensive then I freely admit I would probably have passed it off as somebody being a bit uptight. When more than one person mentions it, then you would be a fool not to question it yourself. Which I have. I can honestly say when the image was posted in the Girls In Realistic Situations it was not meant to be in a disrespectful way. It was, naively probably, meant to show a realistic situation, of how sometimes girls go off to the toilet together. I did not stop to consider the fact that someone had obviously taken the image sneakily over the door, ( it was not me honest! Google).

I will accept that on this occasion I posted an image that was in poor taste. I have also carried out self censorship, and as a punishment I am going climb the steepest hill on my ride tomorrow 3 times.

Nice of you to man up, as it were. I will untar you with my "all men are b@stards" tarring brush....

t.m.h.n.e.t

msmancunia wrote:

No idea - it's women's MTB so I don't go in there cos I'm road. Looking at the first ten or so pages though, I'd assume that it's for women to get women-specific advice that they've not got from elsewhere on the site, or men to get advice on buying bikes for their other halves - there's no Boys in.... threads that I can see, or threads on rainbows, flowers, periods, breastfeeding or vaginal prolapses for that matter. Maybe it's been set up because the general MTB forums aren't women-friendly enough, who knows?

So if there was a "lads" section you wouldn't go in there either?

msmancunia

I don't know the circumstances of why women's MTB was set up. I don't see the need for gender specific forums for either gender.

Pseudonym

supersonic wrote:

We encourage people to do so: as mentioned, as much as the site is pro actively moderated, bits do get missed. When flagged, the topic will be brought to the attention of the full team to moderate.

You were joking about that bit, right..? Truthfully, this is the most re-actively moderated forum I have ever come across. In general, I have never known a moderating team which relies almost exclusively on thread alerts in order to moderate 'proactively'.

I've heard all the excuses - "mods are not paid", "they have proper jobs", "they can't be on here 24/7" - most of that is bollox. Find some individuals that actually want to do the job and actively monitor threads like the one in question here. If that were the case, this discussion would probably not be taking place.

The 'lack of reasonable moderation' (quoted from the thread title) is the reason this discussion is here. Of course some people will push the boundaries and post tasteless and potentially offensive images - there are people like that everywhere. The trick is to remove stuff like that and in doing so, provide some kind of guidance (dare I say a 'moderating influence') to others who may be considering posting on the thread.

Lack of moderating has got you into this mess - nothing else. You really can't blame the users for not pressing the alert button - blame yourselves, for a change.

t.m.h.n.e.t

Pseudonym wrote:

supersonic wrote:

We encourage people to do so: as mentioned, as much as the site is pro actively moderated, bits do get missed. When flagged, the topic will be brought to the attention of the full team to moderate.

You were joking about that bit, right..? Truthfully, this is the most re-actively moderated forum I have ever come across. In general, I have never known a moderating team which relies almost exclusively on thread alerts in order to moderate 'proactively'.

I've heard all the excuses - "mods are not paid", "they have proper jobs", "they can't be on here 24/7" - most of that is bollox. Find some individuals that actually want to do the job and actively monitor threads like the one in question here. If that were the case, this discussion would probably not be taking place.

The 'lack of reasonable moderation' (quoted from the thread title) is the reason this discussion is here. Of course some people will push the boundaries and post tasteless and potentially offensive images - there are people like that everywhere. The trick is to remove stuff like that and in doing so, provide some kind of guidance (dare I say a 'moderating influence') to others who may be considering posting on the thread.

Lack of moderating has got you into this mess - nothing else. You really can't blame the users for not pressing the alert button - blame yourselves, for a change.

And of course,people have offered their services on more than one occasion.

greg66_tri_v2.0

Eric Cartman wrote:

They are threads for sharing beauty and positivity, the equivalent of posting photos of buttercups, rainbows and candy floss. If you find this to be hateful and demeaning it says more about you that those that participate.

The "you're unnatural if you don't like what I like" argument. Fail.

Eric Cartman wrote:

Anyway most of what is posted is no more explicit than an Assos advert that the magazines will happily run.

If by "explicit" you mean no nips/genitals, yes. But that's not the right test. The "girls in realistic situations" has (had?) images that pass that test yet are still offensive.

greg66_tri_v2.0

Eric Cartman wrote:

And those guys that are complaining about it. You are only saying these things to try and impress some girl showing how mature and respectful you are towards them. I apologize in advance for blowing your game apart but I invented that strategy, it doesn't work and you are far better cutting the crap and being honest not only to them but to yourself too. It is much healthier to respect to other peoples viewpoints and tastes rather than hateing on them as part of some get laid strategy.

Idiot.

verylonglegs

velocestrapture wrote:

MattC59 wrote:

msmancunia wrote:

I have to say that Girls in Realistic Situations has offended me the most.

I'm not suprised to be honest, there are one or two which made me raise an eyebrow and think 'The Mods will be along in a minute', but I admit they didn't offend me.

Either way, don't tar us all with the same brush........... purleeeeeze.

The trouble is, that some men have very negative attitudes to women, and display their misogynist attitudes by posting derogatory comments and images against women; some other men post very similar images and comments but of course don't mean any harm to women and any comments are of course meant in a humorous way and aren't really reflective of their actual attitude to women, as in reality they are very respectful of women.

Well, to be honest, why should women have to expend the risk and energy in distinguishing the two? You may actually be the most fair-minded, respectful and genuine guy going, but if you behave like a fool and don't take care to demonstrate in your actual behaviour that you are not, why should any women take care to draw the distinction? If you are not part of the solution, you are part of the problem. Women have enough on their plates looking out for the misogynists who present as nice guys, without having to identify the nice guys who display (ironically, of course) misogynist behaviour.

I'm not sure portraying women as a paragon of virtue collectively works for me at all. Heat magazine and its kind, which is pretty much exclusively bought by women, is packed full of sneaky unflattering photo's of 'celebs' with headlines that scream 'Look at the state of her!' and sells far more copies than FHM, Nuts, Zoo etc.

greg66_tri_v2.0

Jonny_Trousers wrote:

Apart from anything, none of our opinions actually matter. Web forums, such as this one, are not democracies. They are privately owned and providing the law is not being broken, which in this case it is not, the site owners can do whatever the hell they want. Sure, we have the option to show our displeasure with our feet, so by all means rise up and go find a web forum that appeals more to your personal tastes, but I doubt very much that Bike Radar will even notice you're gone.

Do you think the ogle threads are crucial to BR's business viability?

jonny_trousers

PS. I should probably add that I do understand why people find the, "Girls in realistic situations" unpleasant and perhaps it's existence has caused the others Girls-in threads to be viewed more harshly than they otherwise would have been.

greg66_tri_v2.0

shouldbeinbed wrote:

Also bringing in hard core porn and bukakke references isn't helpful as its a very long sliding scale from Liz Hatch in her kit to the latter more page 3 nude than 'in lycra' offerings to pictures someone in the middle of a circle jerk just after the explosive moment.

It *is* a continuum. I agree. Where do you draw the line? Because the line has been drawn already somewhere on it between those two points.

There are people arguing that it is not a democracy here; the owners can have what they want on the site. The mods tell us that the owners don't want *any* OT forums, which means no ogle threads. Someone has argued the case for the ogle threads, and it isn't the owners.

Someone has fixed where the line is, and it is not that clear at the moment where it is, or what the justification is for where it is.

greg66_tri_v2.0

fizz wrote:

How I view the forum I run, is like this.

If its OK going out on pre 9pm TV - its OK
If its OK for viewing at work - its OK
If it fits with the U rating provided for FIlm categorisation - its OK

We don't apply the rules religiously or rigorously, but they are there and can be brought into play when the admin / mod team feel people are taking the mick.

I know in Cake stop when I'm at work that I have to stay our of the "pictures of girls" threads or I am going to get into trouble if anybody see's my screen if some of those images pop up onto the screen whilst viewing those threads.

We also have users who will look at my forum when their kids are around and we have had complaints about naughty pictures or pictures that sail close to the wind of acceptability in the past.

supersonic wrote:

So far, general solutions seem to be:

- ban all threads showing pictures of men and women in a suggestive manner

- create or update off topic areas that have warnings about content

- keep things as they are

- keep things as they are, but allow one such thread in each off topic area, that is described as what it is with a warning: basically, don't enter if you are going to be offended.

Please feel free to add any solutions. Of course to many the solution is the first.

This isn't about banning threads (and threatening to wield the big stick that way is a clumsy way of showing what the mod team thinks about this).

How about some clear guidelines as to where the line is? In keeping with fizz's suggestions, what about:

- no images that are nsfw. The test is not whether they get through your work firewall, but whether you'd be comfortable having them on your screen while someone from HR is standing behind you.
- no images that are not safe for company. The test is whether you'd be comfortable having them on the screen while your teenage daughter and her friends are standing behind you.

Ladies: any views on guidelines along these lines?

MattC59

Regarding the whole situation:

jonny_trousers

Greg66 wrote:

Jonny_Trousers wrote:

Apart from anything, none of our opinions actually matter. Web forums, such as this one, are not democracies. They are privately owned and providing the law is not being broken, which in this case it is not, the site owners can do whatever the hell they want. Sure, we have the option to show our displeasure with our feet, so by all means rise up and go find a web forum that appeals more to your personal tastes, but I doubt very much that Bike Radar will even notice you're gone.

Do you think the ogle threads are crucial to BR's business viability?

Individually, no, but if they go towards making the kind of forum a large number of members want (should we all perhaps not be polled?) then that's what a website who make their money through advertising want.

fizz

The problem that you will have though is

1. There are pictures in those threads that meet those criteria, it would seem to me that some people have an issue with the subject matter as a whole rather than one or two images.

2. You need a mod team that are going to enforce it, which means as has been suggested more mods will be required

3. You will as a user base have to accept the change and you'll all have to accept that from time to time your images get removed. I've never seen a problem with that, but I also found that on my forum that it always helped if I explained to people what had been done and why.

4. You should be finding away to suit the majority of users. Rather than making massive changes to a forum that to me looks like it works to suit the opinion of one or two people that have big mouths and shout until they get their own way.

It seems to me that this issue has been perhaps bubbling away under the surface for a while and its taken the actions of one or two people to the bring it to the surface and thats why its come to light now.

The forum I am a site admin for is this one

http://forums.sv650.org/index.php

Our equivalent of cake stop is the Idle banter section, so if it helps have a peak in there for an alternative way of doing things or just to see how other people deal with things like that if you wish to.

Every forum is different, you have a community that will behave and function differently to the community on the forum I run, so what we do might not work here and I am not suggesting for one minute it will.

We had a similar thread with pics of ladies in it. We kept an eye on it and few people crossed the line the pictures were removed and we put a warning in the thread that if people cant stick to the rule's the thread would be closed. It carried on happily for a while until somebody posted a semi naked picture of a girl who was clearly under aged. I then removed the picture and locked the thread and explained why I had done what I had done. Nobody complained nobody objected and we havent had another thread start of that nature since.

The other issue with bikeradar I noticed a while ago was that on my iphone when I wasnt on the wifi at home I couldnt view bikeradar as orange decided that site contained adult pictures and wasnt safe for me to look at on my phone.

I havent tried it since, but if thats happening still you are restricting your audience and your potential advertisers might not want to take ad space on your forum....

Again apologies if waffling dont know if that helps at all..

Cleat Eastwood

Eric Cartman wrote:

And those guys that are complaining about it. You are only saying these things to try and impress some girl showing how mature and respectful you are towards them. I apologize in advance for blowing your game apart but I invented that strategy, it doesn't work and you are far better cutting the crap and being honest not only to them but to yourself too. It is much healthier to respect to other peoples viewpoints and tastes rather than hateing on them as part of some get laid strategy.

absolutely spot on eric - middle class self delusion is the worst social cancer. some people need to get over themselves.....or at least wait until they pass 40 before they post comments.

rml380z

fizz wrote:

The forum I am a site admin for is this one

http://forums.sv650.org/index.php

Our equivalent of cake stop is the Idle banter section, so if it helps have a peak in there for an alternative way of doing things or just to see how other people deal with things like that if you wish to.

Just using your forum purely as an illustration of what a thorny issue this is;
I followed the link to the forum, and one of the first signatures I spotted on the first thread I looked at was "SVs are like women - some are pointy, some are curvy, but underneath... all are naked."
Personally, I have no issue with that, but I wouldn't say it out loud at work...

rml380z

Public internet forums are nothing like talking in a pub.

Unless, that is, you know of a pub where;
you allow anyone, anywhere in the world to listen in on your conversation,
everything you say, even off-hand comments, are recorded for anyone to see at any time,
everyone in the pub is allowed to wear a mask so nobody actually knows who anyone else really is,
you don't mind anyone in the pub butting into a private chat, and monopolising the conversation.

I don't know where some people drink, but if I walked into a pub like that, I'd walk straight out again!

jonny_trousers

Cleat Eastwood wrote:

Eric Cartman wrote:

And those guys that are complaining about it. You are only saying these things to try and impress some girl showing how mature and respectful you are towards them. I apologize in advance for blowing your game apart but I invented that strategy, it doesn't work and you are far better cutting the crap and being honest not only to them but to yourself too. It is much healthier to respect to other peoples viewpoints and tastes rather than hateing on them as part of some get laid strategy.

absolutely spot on eric - middle class self delusion is the worst social cancer. some people need to get over themselves.....or at least wait until they pass 40 before they post comments.

I'm over 40. Does that mean I talk sense now?

MattC59

:roll:
I've got better things to worry about, I'm off out on my bike.

dirtymonkey1985

MattC59 wrote:

:roll:
I've got better things to worry about, I'm off out on my bike.

Ahmen to that! Couldn't have put it better, after all cycling is why we're all here

rideslikeagirl

Greg66 wrote:

(Snipped)

This isn't about banning threads (and threatening to wield the big stick that way is a clumsy way of showing what the mod team thinks about this).

How about some clear guidelines as to where the line is? In keeping with fizz's suggestions, what about:

- no images that are nsfw. The test is not whether they get through your work firewall, but whether you'd be comfortable having them on your screen while someone from HR is standing behind you.
- no images that are not safe for company. The test is whether you'd be comfortable having them on the screen while your teenage daughter and her friends are standing behind you.

Ladies: any views on guidelines along these lines?

Register me on a vote for this please!

Clank

Pseudonym wrote:

supersonic wrote:

We encourage people to do so: as mentioned, as much as the site is pro actively moderated, bits do get missed. When flagged, the topic will be brought to the attention of the full team to moderate.

You were joking about that bit, right..? Truthfully, this is the most re-actively moderated forum I have ever come across. In general, I have never known a moderating team which relies almost exclusively on thread alerts in order to moderate 'proactively'.

I've heard all the excuses - "mods are not paid", "they have proper jobs", "they can't be on here 24/7" - most of that is bollox. Find some individuals that actually want to do the job and actively monitor threads like the one in question here. If that were the case, this discussion would probably not be taking place.

The 'lack of reasonable moderation' (quoted from the thread title) is the reason this discussion is here. Of course some people will push the boundaries and post tasteless and potentially offensive images - there are people like that everywhere. The trick is to remove stuff like that and in doing so, provide some kind of guidance (dare I say a 'moderating influence') to others who may be considering posting on the thread.

Lack of moderating has got you into this mess - nothing else. You really can't blame the users for not pressing the alert button - blame yourselves, for a change.

Here we go.

Blame themselves for what? What 'mess'? They ain't the ones complaining about the way the forum is being run.

It's forum 'members' that are kicking up a fuss about moderation levels, claiming they want something done, yet, just like the poster here, they find it easier to feign outrage with verbose arguement than to actually take some of the resposibility that they have been offered. Now who appears to be lazy?

Right; moderating forums - I'm going to present an experienced veiwpoint for you (despite the fact it'll get readily dsimissed). I've moderated a major forum (similar traffic flow to BR, actually) and it ended taking approximately 80 hours a week of my life, on top of paid work. I tried to be proactive, but in the end it was just not possible. Not only do you have to axe threads and removes posts and generally flockwatch, but you also have to justify yourself to every keyboard-warrior who thinks they have greater right than you do. Here's another little gem we learned - more moderators actually makes the job *harder* ('too many cooks' isn't just a playground meme). 'Bollox'? No, experience. Discussion like this always end up happening - it's an inevitable phenomenon of internet forums - someone will always try to take offence at the way a forum is moderated, opinions will always be different. You'll think I'm a p***k, I'll disagree. See how it happens?

Oh, I've put the word member is quotes as unlike an official Club, posters here have no right of owenership over the domain. We post - we're not actually 'members' in any legal context. Technically, I guess, we are 'service users'.