Well done Gaz, Leo, Baciodilupo, and Robicheaux on yesterday. If I've left anyone out, I apologise; please leave a message on this thread and I'll update.
Looks like at least three members are still having very frustrating problems logging. I've asked Baciodilupo to try something new and when I hear back we can hopefully resolve it. Apologies.
Joe
Buondì Joe, this morning I again had to follow the method as outlined yesterday before logging in.
I cannot see any message from you, either yesterday or today?
Buondi Bacio. I replied to your post yesterday (I think!! - will check) to ask if you have another email address that you could try a new sign up with, calling yourself Bacio2? Don't delete your current one, I just wanted to see what happened if you do this?
Thanks
Joe
Leave that one with me, Joe. Miracles I can do right now, the impossible takes a little longer. (I'm not great with technology, might take a few days. Is this OK?
Joe, I think I might have solved the problem......the old password for the other .com site, it was still on the browser. Hope that makes sense. I'll keep you posted..........
NAP Matchless 4.00 Musselburgh.
Enqarde 2.25 Warwick won SP 10/1.I must admit after the start and for 99% of the race I thought he was out for a quiet run. A pleasant surprise.
Joe, Matchless won at 11/2….
Admiral D won at 17/2. I went ew.
I can't get the hang of this site one bit
Guardian Moderation
For those following the "reasoning" of the Guardian's moderators (Harrytheactor, etc) I have a new piece of information. I posted a critical review comment on an article about Gardener's World, but more specifically about Monty Don. There were a few anti comments to my post as Monty Don is regarded as a saint by many viewers. Not by me.
Later, I saw that my comment had been moderated. I asked why that had happened, as follows:
"Interview
‘I’m a sex symbol? That makes me embarrassed’: Monty Don on love, class and his future on Gardeners’ World
Unfortunately several responses to your comments breached our guidelines with respect to personal abuse directed at other commentors (in this case yourself) so your comment was removed in accordance with Point 4 of ourhttps://www.theguardian.com/community-standards&source=gmail&ust=1699511013928000&usg=AOvVaw3OAFlieJEZnGoFWdyvmyf S">Community Standards, replicated below
4. We reserve the right to redirect or curtail conversations which descend into “flame-wars” based on ingrained partisanship or generalisations. We don’t want to stop people discussing topics they are enthusiastic about, but we do ask users to find ways of sharing their views that do not feel divisive, threatening or toxic to others.
Your comment as a standalone was well within our guidelines, however when any comment generates multiple abusive comments that breach Point 1 (see below) of ourhttps://www.theguardian.com/community-standards&source=gmail&ust=1699511013928000&usg=AOvVaw3OAFlieJEZnGoFWdyvmyf S">Community Standardsthere comes a point where the only way to prevent repetition of the same toxic talking points is to remove the comment to which they are responding.
1. We welcome debate and dissent, but personal attacks (against authors or other users), persistent trolling and mindless abuse will not be tolerated.The key to maintaining the Guardian website as an inviting space is to focus on intelligent discussion of topics.
We were reluctant to remove your pertinent comment, but unfortunately sometimes other people's divisive responses make it necessary to do so in order to keep a discussion on track.
All the best,
Nick
Community Moderator"
@tom-jolliffe This is not new information to me, as it has always been one of the tools available to the Guardian mods and is used quite brutally at times. It's a very blunt instrument as a thread could begin with a thoughtful comment and then degenerate into the naughty stuff which is obviously not on, so they wipe the lot including the original thoughtful comment. The rules don't mention they reserve the right to remove a comment without leaving any trace of the original poster's identity. That is the Stalinist route and I have suffered it and queried it. They deny it exists.
The fact that you have been carried out on your shield in the cause of the "Great Monty Don Debate" has a sort of bathos to it, I guess.
@harrytheactor "A sort of bathos" is an understatement, Harry. But I am not out for the count as a result.
T'would surely be easier and fairer if they simply closed your post to further comments rather than deleting.
I saw on Saturday Michael was first to respond to my analysis post and got a red card right away. We ought to be thankful for him, he's the only factor in TH that hasn't changed.
