Reimbursement of "consequential loss"

[whole diary]

[grahame]

And in response to the other thing, make new rules if you want to restrict what I say and how I say it. I always though this was to a legal point (IE non slander/not libellous etc) free and easy speech. Clearly not seeing as im now being ganged up on by two 'mods'.

Hmmm ... not how I read it.  The moderator team was indeed concerned at the level of internal information being posted here, and registered that concern.   But there wasn't any rules or "cease and desist" laid down.   There was also concern that using potentially derogatory terms to describe Network Rail and the Department for Transport may be counterproductive in having them give your views consideration ... I know I've used such terms in the past; it was at a time when we had to spell "Melksham" every time we spoke of the TransWilts, and was done to be noticed rather than listened to.

But ... you post (or don't) at your risk, and we only step in to the standard rules and law rather than making anything up on the fly

[John R]

I think it was the reaction to the alternative spelling of Network Rail that upset SDS - there's no reference to the level of internal information being published in the most recent posts, unless something was going on behind the scenes.

Considering only the "Notwork Fail" (sic) issue,  I have a degree of sympathy with SDS. bobm's request was polite and should have been enough. But it was quickly followed up by another mod/admin post which (in my opinion) appeared unnecessary and heavy handed.

In addition, in circumstances like this the "like" facility can give the impression of "ganging up".  At least three Admin/mods liked bobm's post, which does appear to be disproportionate public criticism from the mod team, even before SDS had an opportunity to respond. So I can see why he reacted in the way that he did.

[grahame]

... unless something was going on behind the scenes ...

when metrics such as these are going on, it's probable that there will be both co-ordination between moderators (ironically to prevent multiple responses in many cases) and also a conversation with the member(s) concerned. That's a general comment, you'll appreciate.

Considering only the "Notwork Fail" (sic) issue,  I have a degree of sympathy with SDS. bobm's request was polite and should have been enough. But it was quickly followed up by another mod/admin post which (in my opinion) appeared unnecessary and heavy handed.

In addition, in circumstances like this the "like" facility can give the impression of "ganging up".  At least three Admin/mods liked bobm's post, which does appear to be disproportionate public criticism from the mod team, even before SDS had an opportunity to respond. So I can see why he reacted in the way that he did.

I am, you will note, avoiding getting case-specific.

I'm reminded of one of the prettiest young ladies I ever met.   She was flying from Argentina to Gatwick with a stopover in Mexico City, where I was flying from.   There were lots of large, tired men in the drab terminal gathering for the flight ... and this one syren and I though "who's lucky enough to be siting next to her (for more space, you'll understand!) and it turned out to be me.   She was returning to college where she was writing a thesis about roles and ranks on social media sites such as forums - both formal rankings and informal rankings as to how different members within the same formal group actually end up treating others (and being treated by others) differently and how that behaviour develops over time and history.

Your comment on the "like" facility is well made, John. It's something we're very new to here, and perhaps some of us don't always realise the effect of a single simple click.