Feedback!

[Rob]

But the warning - "I don't - that kind of speculation is not welcome here" - doesn't half come off as quite dictatorially especially as there was no speculation, just a "wonder why..." post seeing if another member was aware of why the sudden removal from social media.

I will admit that the "I don't" bit was harsh, and I apologise for that. I stand by my original decision though to make a comment on that. We are not here to discuss why someone has removed themselves from social media, there could be a perfectly innocent reason, but we're not here to discuss people's private lives.

The site rules are sent via private message to every new member who joins this site, and a link to them can be found at the bottom of the page (used to be at the top, but were moved recently), so they can't really be missed.

Also worth pointing out that I'd never have seen the warning as I don't tend to read backwards through old posts. I only became aware as someone I know who looks at the forum messaged to say I was in detention! I'd hope the point of the warnings is to make the user aware and not intended to shame them but there is a good chance they'd never see the warning - hence my suggestion about them being PM'd instead.

The moderator messages are not official warnings. If a user is given a warning, they are always informed via PM and a warning label will show up on their profile. I do think a review of the way the moderator messages are used is needed though, so that's it only used when warnings are issued.

[swaggyboi128]

I will admit that the "I don't" bit was harsh, and I apologise for that.

Personally, I think you were just expressing your opinion, which is perfectly fine. I didn't find it harsh at all.

[Neil Jones]

As a new member, it's a minefield to know what is and isn't an acceptable topic - certainly this isn't married up with what was and wasn't on TV Forum - which is absolutely Rob's prerogative. But when you sign up, there are no guidelines presented and although there is a pinned "Forum Guidelines" post, only (up to) a third of the membership have viewed it. I've only just realised it had been updated this month as the forum indexes only show the date it was original posted (21st March) and it's not all that comprehensive.

For instance, I had a post flagged about Steve Dixon removing all his public / Sky branded social media accounts - it certainly doesn't go against any of the forums guidelines in the pinned post and I thought it was of interest since he, as one of the current longest serving members of the on-air presentation team, was a heavy poster of Sky News content and material.

Lets flip the discussion round.
If you were a high profile TV presenter with your own show ("Sky News with Les Bean" for example) , would you want people to constantly speculate on why you've purged your @SkyBean account on a TV Presentation discussion website somewhere? People on Twitter don't owe anybody else an explanation for why they close their account and speculation on why Presenter X closed his profile tend to wander off into the realms of fantasy given half a chance.

In any event, just because it doesn't go against the forum guidelines doesn't necessarily mean it can be posted. It doesn't explicitly say "don't post hardcore pornography" , but that doesn't mean I can post it. Many web forums have a "terms of use" thing which albeit probably not contractual in a law perspective, but that's what you agree to. It even says at the top "these rules are subject to change at any time", so you probably should look at them on occasion - not every day but semi-regularly.

Most web forums don't put things in sticky/pinned posts for fun or to make the forum look pretty. They are done for a reason and that reason is usually quite important, otherwise they wouldn't be sticky

[XIII]

Instead of the big yellow warning sticker, perhaps red letters for warnings or telling offs. I've seen it used by mods on other forums and is quite effective.

[iloveTV1]

I like the new images for the different sub-categories, but especially for the buttons that lead to TVF and Metropol, maybe there could be some context about what they are.

[Rob]

Instead of the big yellow warning sticker, perhaps red letters for warnings or telling offs. I've seen it used by mods on other forums and is quite effective.

We've decided on the following:

The use of the @username facility to offer advice, and use the Moderator message purely for warnings issued. We'll continue to issue warnings to members via Private Message as usual.

[Lewis]

Hi Rob,
For those on smaller screens or who use smaller windows to browse easier (like me) the buttons at the bottom of the screen require you to mouseover to work out what they are. Could they automatically resize to use the rest of the bar instead of iconising? Thank you

[Rob]

Hi Rob,
For those on smaller screens or who use smaller windows to browse easier (like me) the buttons at the bottom of the screen require you to mouseover to work out what they are. Could they automatically resize to use the rest of the bar instead of iconising? Thank you

That's something that's being reviewed in the next website update.

[Rob]

I like the new images for the different sub-categories, but especially for the buttons that lead to TVF and Metropol, maybe there could be some context about what they are.

Done for the Metropol and TV Forum buttons. No point in doing them for the others. They're pretty self explanatory.

[Les Bean]

As a new member, it's a minefield to know what is and isn't an acceptable topic - certainly this isn't married up with what was and wasn't on TV Forum - which is absolutely Rob's prerogative. But when you sign up, there are no guidelines presented and although there is a pinned "Forum Guidelines" post, only (up to) a third of the membership have viewed it. I've only just realised it had been updated this month as the forum indexes only show the date it was original posted (21st March) and it's not all that comprehensive.

For instance, I had a post flagged about Steve Dixon removing all his public / Sky branded social media accounts - it certainly doesn't go against any of the forums guidelines in the pinned post and I thought it was of interest since he, as one of the current longest serving members of the on-air presentation team, was a heavy poster of Sky News content and material.

Lets flip the discussion round.
If you were a high profile TV presenter with your own show ("Sky News with Les Bean" for example) , would you want people to constantly speculate on why you've purged your @SkyBean account on a TV Presentation discussion website somewhere? People on Twitter don't owe anybody else an explanation for why they close their account and speculation on why Presenter X closed his profile tend to wander off into the realms of fantasy given half a chance.

In any event, just because it doesn't go against the forum guidelines doesn't necessarily mean it can be posted. It doesn't explicitly say "don't post hardcore pornography" , but that doesn't mean I can post it. Many web forums have a "terms of use" thing which albeit probably not contractual in a law perspective, but that's what you agree to. It even says at the top "these rules are subject to change at any time", so you probably should look at them on occasion - not every day but semi-regularly.

Most web forums don't put things in sticky/pinned posts for fun or to make the forum look pretty. They are done for a reason and that reason is usually quite important, otherwise they wouldn't be sticky

Sorry Neil but you've completely missed the intended point of my post and with the greatest respect, my post wasn't aimed at you or for discussion - it was posted in a feedback forum for which the owner of the website has gratefully addressed.

[Neil Jones]

Sorry Neil but you've completely missed the intended point of my post and with the greatest respect, my post wasn't aimed at you or for discussion - it was posted in a feedback forum for which the owner of the website has gratefully addressed.

All I'm going to say to this is if you want your message only to be seen by the website owner and responded to only by the website owner, send it in a PM. Otherwise everything outside of a locked thread is up for reply whether you like it or not.

[Les Bean]

Sorry Neil but you've completely missed the intended point of my post and with the greatest respect, my post wasn't aimed at you or for discussion - it was posted in a feedback forum for which the owner of the website has gratefully addressed.

All I'm going to say to this is if you want your message only to be seen by the website owner and responded to only by the website owner, send it in a PM. Otherwise everything outside of a locked thread is up for reply whether you like it or not.

I was posting feedback and a suggestion in a feedback forum which also generated other members suggestions. It wasn't intended to turn into an off-topic discussion where posting about a presenters social media is somehow compared to posting hardcore pornography hock:

[James Martin]

I wasn't sure where to park this but in view of events on the GB News thread I felt it needed saying.

I accept I was never going to be fully welcomed on this forum with open arms. However, that doesn't excuse the snarky comments and I would like to thank the Mods for dealing with these in a fair manner - and indeed I have had the appropriate quiet word in my ear when required.

In fact, I can't fault the moderation which has been truly excellent and a massive improvement on the blurred lines of TVF. At no point do I not know where I stand and there is no ambiguity.

It appears heavy but it's early days. The boundaries of what's banter and what's bullying will find themselves within time.

If people have an issue with me they have two options. One is the "foe" feature. The other is that my inbox is always open and I will happily debate any user that has a personal disagreement with me in a dignified manner in private.

[Rob]

I wasn't sure where to park this but in view of events on the GB News thread I felt it needed saying.

I accept I was never going to be fully welcomed on this forum with open arms. However, that doesn't excuse the snarky comments and I would like to thank the Mods for dealing with these in a fair manner - and indeed I have had the appropriate quiet word in my ear when required.

In fact, I can't fault the moderation which has been truly excellent and a massive improvement on the blurred lines of TVF. At no point do I not know where I stand and there is no ambiguity.

It appears heavy but it's early days. The boundaries of what's banter and what's bullying will find themselves within time.

If people have an issue with me they have two options. One is the "foe" feature. The other is that my inbox is always open and I will happily debate any user that has a personal disagreement with me in a dignified manner in private.

I appreciate you saying what you've said James, and I thank you for doing so. As you have admitted, I've had to speak to you on several occasions, and you've taken my advice with good grace, which proves to me that I must be doing something right with this forum.

I (and the rest of the moderators) are working together to try to make this a pleasant place to discuss television presentation, without bitterness or hatred. I've had to put up with bullying, name calling, and abusive comments for most of my adult life, and sometimes it's been hard to take in, and I've lashed out at people for no reason. In recent weeks though, I've learnt to accept some of the criticism that's been put in my direction, and I've done my best not to lash out angrily about it (those who remember the live-stream before this place opened will know exactly what I'm on about).

I'm extremely grateful to those who have made comments over at Metropol about the recent moderation decisions. I've explained things in a clear and concise way, and I hope that the changes introduced will make the site easier for me (and the moderators) to run.

I remain determined to make this a friendly place to discuss television presentation, and I know that the majority of the forum population want this too. As long as people follow the rules, this forum will be a no-hate zone.

As James has kindly pointed out, if you are getting fed up with someone's posts, then use the "foe" facility. Simply click on their username, then click "add foe" - and you'll never see their posts again. It's quite simple.

[James Martin]

No problem Rob.

As I say, yes sometimes the moderation seems overly harsh but in these early days it's important to say "this overstepped the line in the sand" - as someone who admittedly likes to travel very close to that line I genuinely respect the times you've said "that's not OK, don't do it again."