Community Rules & Code of Conduct - feedback thread

[#1]

@cass905

If this Unwritten rule is indeed being implemented then it seems like a move in the right direction to me.
Maybe it will help to curtail the payback gaming cartels that have been operating, seemingly with impunity for far too long.

The argument that people are simply notifying others of a thread that will interest them doesn't really stack up when most of the threads which typify this behaviour contain zero discernable content to interest anybody, other than the promise of easy kudo rewards.

Personally I think PMing people to "call them to a thread" should also be verboten. Sounds like payback gaming behaviour to me.

Far from ruining the forum, stopping this behaviour might actually improve things and make them far less "robotic".

[#2]

Maybe the Ed who suggested you cannot mention someone not already participating in a thread was wrong @paul_d_ ? 

For example I call upon a founder member, who I dare not name 😱, on a regular basis for assistance in H and S!!

[#3]

Hi @nefarius

I would never suggest that,  however there is always 2 sides to every coin and with another view in mind they may reconsider that position or not.

Yeh I think mentioning another member to assist on H&S is quite justified when you know that that members knowledge will assist another members to resolve an issue, however that varies by forum / board depending on the circumstances. Each instance is based on a case by case basis as not every situation is the same .

However as this is a conversation between a member and an educator  then it best that the member replies to the educator and raises these points, I'm sure if their opinions differ then at least they will have the reason why so will leave it at that haha.

Paul.

[#4]

@nefarius
I think what you are describing is a very different behaviour than the one which I'm guessing was "educated" against in the PM cass received. Of course I'm only guessing as I am not privy to the message.

[#5]

So business as usual @paul_d_ 😁

I made my assumption on "we aren't robots".

We all make mistakes, especially me 🤔

I should imagine mentioning non participating members has, at times, been misused so understand the logic. As you say - every case has its own merit.

@revjonty

[#6]

Hi @nefarius

hehehe we all make some mistakes we are human after all & I've made a few that I've apologised for them both on the forums and privately. Its only fair that everyone understands that this happens.......we aint perfect lol but we learn from our mistakes if it happens,  reach out to us (we don't bite) we will look at the situation again and if appropriate make the required fixes or explain why we took the action we did (which should have been in the first PM you received).  We are always happy to review any decission or action we take so please do question the reason why we took some action if you feel strongly about it.

PM the educator who reached out to you rather than taking to the forums as in most cases it will probably be removed and in some cases it can snowballs from there (which no one wants).

It also gives the educators the oppertunity to explain the action taken as we never discuss this on the public forums.

Paul.

[#7]

@paul_d_ We as members don't know and can only speculate on whether it was multiple mentions that was educated against on say an OP of a thread.

That got me thinking about what @revjonty said and I paraphrase, that mentions should be outlawed if they have not participated on the thread.

If that were upheld, (doubtful) that would see 10,000 kudos threads and the like deleted.

https://community.giffgaff.com/t5/Contribute/10-000-kudos/td-p/15678571/page/24

The OP in that thread congratulates a member for reaching that milestone, presumably without the implied consent of that member. 

Included in the OP is a table of member names with their kudo tally.

This got me thinking again. The list is ongoing and updated, crucially past the 25 May 2018.

Did anyone/everyone agree to inclusion on the table within the OP?

Does that thread comply with GDPR and our own guidelines, is what I am fundamentally asking?

[#8]

That isn't what I'm saying at all @jaymailsays
It is the practice of "rallying the troops" which is all to often done which I am against. Mentioning someone for obviously valid reason is a different thing entirely.

[#9]

The use of @ mentions is a good idea in principle, but only for forum regulars really, and even then some people won’t always be available to respond. I switched mine off a long time ago, because I can go weeks without looking in on the forums, and I don’t necessarily want to belatedly join a discussion. But then the perception might be that you’re ignoring people, so it’s unfairly raising expectations that members might be getting involved in something akin to a live chat. Staff don’t always respond to them, even when they’ve started the conversation, so clearly there’s a discussion to be had about their intended use.