How do guides get to be guides.

Facts are not encouraged on this forum. You finally came out and said it. Hurrah. But you're obviously curious. Go on, you made the rule, break it..

The "facts" are that two prospective guides have been blackballed on the basis of personal dislike by other guides, AFTER having been offered the position by Dooyoo.

That's not naming shaming and that's PRECISELY the question you asked on behalf of yourself, Rachel. Make your mind up. It's suitable for the forum if YOU are the person possibly disadvantaged but not if it's another person? Nice. More hypocrisy.

Jebus. And I wonder why I'm not bothering to contribute much to opinion sites any more.

No I was not questioning the validity of your posting Jill and welcome the fact that someone agrees with me !!! So is this is indeed the case, how do we react ? Do you think writing to Dooyoo would help the situation. A guide is a public figure on the site and should therefore be responsible for their actions. The name and shame rule stands but if there is evidence that guides do in fact hold back other members from being guides, the fact that you stated it makes it a good contribution because members can then state their case to Dooyoo and perhaps do something about it.

Jill just has written to Dooyoo...

I'm so confused.

Good on er and if they don't listen to her, being a trusted members of the site for so long, then they are doing themselves a disservice.

I think someone should decide what is and is not allowed on this forum. There seems to be a hell of a lot of confusion as to what is permissible and what is not. I for one am struggling to know what to moderate within what seem to be unclear guidelines. Are facts not permissible now?

On another note I am very sorry to see you have resigned Jill. I have been offline for three days and come back to bedlam!

NAMING OR POINTING FINGERS AT INDIVIDUAL MEMBERS has always been the rule here for moderating.

If for example guides have been known to use bias in the choice of other guides, it is sufficient to state that without naming names.

Sorry, Dave. I probably shouldn't have posted. It's just that I'd spent a lot of time here telling Rachel to get a grip with her conspiracy theories, only to find that I'd talked a load of old crap and that if A N Other guide makes enough fuss over their personal dislike of another member, that member will not get to be a guide. I've not said who was proposed or who did the blackballing. I know I'm skirting the edge of this N&S thing, but I am criticising the SYSTEM, not the prospective guide or the person who blackballed. So I reckon I'm ok.

Y'know?

I'm not sorry to go. If I'd realised this could ever happen, I'd not have gone back to guiding or joined the group in the first place.

You had every right to express your view, and in fact it supports my view. When you posted about my conspiracy theories, you believed that too, so your postings were valid. I questioned them as I did not believe them to be correct. I believe dooyoo need to look at their guiding system closely if they are to have unbiased guides. This appears not to be the case at the moment and that saddens me because if guides are chosen on the basis of who is pally with whom, then it puts in question how effective the guidance will be.

Ok. This is what happened.

Two people were suggested.
A poll backed up the suggestions with a majority in favour of both candidates.
The positions were offered.
Anne informed the group the positions were being offered.
A guide suddenly posted objections to one of the candidates.
I pointed out the same objection could be made to the other one.
A guide said they saw that but that they liked one candidate and not t'other.
Anne withdrew both offers.

(I should say that of all the guides, something like 12 voted in favour of both and 3 against both).

well that is not fair. If the positions were offered, they should have stood by their offer. If the poll was in favour of the candidates, and the offer was made, then retracting it is in bad taste.

No problem with your posting as such Jill I was confused as Rachel said (paraphrasing) "We do not encourage facts" which changes the goalposts somewhat. Rachel has cleared it up for me now. I am one of the people who doesn't get the decision either. You CANNOT offer two people a position and then retract it no matter what the reason.

Not encouraging facts was a wrong posting. I am busy here and said the wrong words. We do not encourage specifics. Of course we encourage fact and if it read like that, then it's down to me and a grey moment.


Ciao actually offered me a position and then retracted it too last year, and I was furious with them so I suppose that both sites have their flaws in chosing who guides, although I always thought that judging candidates on personal likes and dislikes is really not fair to anyone.

dididave wrote:

I am one of the people who doesn't get the decision either. You CANNOT offer two people a position and then retract it no matter what the reason.

Add me to that, although I'm a bit confused atm (the tablets should be kicking in soon). I genuinely beleived that it was something that had been voted on and decided quite a while back.

It had been decided a while back. We had a clear majority vote (80%) in favour. This is the reason I'm so cross and the reason I've resigned. The minority in defeat (and really, basically, one member of that minority) became so vocal that Dooyoo withdrew the offers they'd already made. Not only that, but it was openly stated that personal dislike was the main factor. I just can't believe it. I think it's utterly disgraceful that the minority can hold the majority to ransom like that. I believed that the whole system was set up to stop exactly that happening. Had I realised this wasn't the case, I would never, ever have associated myself with the system in the first place.

The system seemed fine up to three days ago. What happened to change it so much is anyone's guess. I honestly did not think their was a minority rule going on before now.

Well, I'm not telling lies on anyone's behalf, ever. So I've put right the errors I made on it earlier. I'm also applying by deed poll to change my name to Phil!

Jill Murphy wrote:

Well, I'm not telling lies on anyone's behalf, ever. So I've put right the errors I made on it earlier. I'm also applying by deed poll to change my name to Phil!

Now I'm confused...(but I'm fick)

I spent a lot of time here - in my capacity as guide for Dooyoo - explaining the guide system as I thought it to be. How I thought it to be is not how it is. Had I not spent a lot of time here explaining how I thought it to be, I would not have posted a retraction on this thread as none would have been necessary. As I had posted, I would have felt like a liar had I kept quiet.

If you see what I mean!

Jill Murphy wrote:

If you see what I mean!

Yup. I do.

Sue Magee's asked to me say on her behalf here that unless Dooyoo honour their offers to the two candidates, she too will resign as guide.

I really do not see how any fair person who has the good of the site in mind can actually stay a guide if those offers are not honoured. An 80 per cent vote is an 80 per cent vote and should be upheld.

Quote :

Well, I'm not telling lies on anyone's behalf, ever. So I've put right the errors I made on it earlier. I'm also applying by deed poll to change my name to Phil!

Gawd help us, there's enough with one Phil !!

I've just waded through this whole string and I cannot believe what I've just read.
Blackballed by an extremely vocal doyoo guide???!!!!
Think we must be back in the years when we burned witches!!

Seems to me that Anne is stuck between a rock and a hard place.

Yes it would of been better not to offer the positions until after it had been thrashed out on the yahoo group thingy, and yes it is a little strange if one persons objections have prevented the people in question being given guide positions.

BUT at least you've discussed the issue at length on the yahoo group thingy, would everyone rather these things were done in a Ciao stylee?

i.e. members not listened to/ cared about / consulted.