Elena777 vs VideoSlots

[Fiekie247]

So what would the final verdict be in this case? VS asked her to open a PAB so they can review again and provide information from their side during the PAB process?
The fact that she already concluded the MADRE route and they ruled in her favour, is that now being ignored? I am confused now...

Anyways I seriously hope they would find mutual ground and come to a mutual agreement and conclusion.

 

[Fiekie247]

Oh Just remembered she not from EU correct? Which means Madre is not applicable to this case spefically or would she still fall under that license of the MGA?

@Elena777 - Where you from again?

Just checked she is from Russia according to her profile.

 

[The Viking]

I can certainly understand that. Some of the "commentary" in here has been distinctly adolescent.

exacly if i were a newbie and came in here asking for help, then get 2 pages filled with jokes and no comment from rep i would run somewere else
thankfully i know you guys so if i need assist sometimes at least i know what to expect

 

[Fiekie247]

I guess the reason why the first 2 pages high jacked the thread because of inadequate information that was provided from the start maybe?

If we look at the Casumo SOW thread that's been pretty active on the forum, there are no jokes really in there and I guess because proper information/facts was given upfront/from the start for all of us to give our 2, however with this case we can assume many things and not much up for discussion since we do not know all the facts, but I understand it does not make it right since she is a newbie who asked for help...

 

[Borgie]

exacly if i were a newbie and came in here asking for help, then get 2 pages filled with jokes and no comment from rep i would run somewere else
thankfully i know you guys so if i need assist sometimes at least i know what to expect

exacly if i were a newbie and came in here asking for help, then get 2 pages filled with jokes and no comment from rep i would run somewere else
thankfully i know you guys so if i need assist sometimes at least i know what to expect

Many of us involved in that have apologised already

 

[The Viking]

Many of us involved in that have apologised already

i know

 

[Fiekie247]

Many of us involved in that have apologised already

Yeah I saw that.

I am just thinking now, what would the next step be for the OP?

CM's PAB?

 

[Borgie]

Yeah I saw that.

I am just thinking now, what would the next step be for the OP?

CM's PAB?

As she has reopened her case at AG I doubt that she will raise a PAB here

 

[Jono777]

The 'jokers' have taken the rap on the knuckles and moved on.......

No need to drag this point on and on.

Had no jokes been made then the rep would have been getting it in the neck 10x over, always an excuse for some...

Bottom line is without ALL the facts no members can accurately say if, and or but.....

 

[chiya]

The 'jokers' have taken the rap on the knuckles and moved on.......

No need to drag this point on and on.

Had no jokes been made then the rep would have been getting it in the neck 10x over, always an excuse for some...

Bottom line is without ALL the facts no members can accurately say if, and or but.....

But had no jokes been made, maybe OP wouldn't have moved to AG. As far as first impressions go, this was a terrible display.

And this wasn't the first nor last time. There are certain people who's only purpose on this forum seems to derail and joke in every thread. It's really tiring frankly.

Even though moderator team in any forum relies mostly on reports, having more mods wouldn't be a bad thing.

 

[goatwack]

I'm seeing the reason why so many members are deserting this site altogether and it's not for the reasons mentioned.

I'll be first to admit in hindsight that silly and irrelevant 'contributions' were made to this thread, and it snowballed from there.

It has long been acknowledged and accepted......but what is genuinely laughable is certain members piping up with their agendas to seemingly get others reprimanded, nay banned, when their sole contributions amount to nothing more than bile whenever I see them 'comment', and wanting to police the forum.

Apart from the initial points that were all taken on board I can see some members positively foaming at the mouth to get their digs in

I will say that overall more 'hands-on' mods at all hours could have nipped this in the bud there and then. Something like "Guys, let's go easy with the joking and see what the OP needs', although you'll find in most cases, it's fairly self-regulated. To suggest that every thread is hijacked is just nonsense.

But please, anyone else that wants to come forward to have a pop please do so, I mean half the thread is just that eh

 

[Jono777]

Given the fact that the PAB is closed and the OP still has not posted, nor contacted Max lets not use this to belittle or constantly nag on at time served respected members etc

Yeah ok, I should not have joked, especially as mine was the first response, taken on board, eating humble pie, kissing feet etc etc etc

Geez, I am a quick learner and don't need reminding every 'x' posts, I get it!

FTR: In my time here, I have provided a LOT more genuine, honest, accurate and helpful advice etc than I have been in these somewhat over the top reaction, somewhat pathetic situations.

I will leave it there and work on my timing for future banter, whit and humour, just happy inside that I am capable of them

 

[goatwack]

Given the fact that the PAB is closed and the OP still has not posted, nor contacted Max lets not use this to belittle or constantly nag on at time served respected members etc

Yeah ok, I should not have joked, especially as mine was the first response, taken on board, eating humble pie, kissing feet etc etc etc

Geez, I am a quick learner and don't need reminding every 'x' posts, I get it!

FTR: In my time here, I have provided a LOT more genuine, honest, accurate and helpful advice etc than I have been in these somewhat over the top reaction, somewhat pathetic situations.

I will leave it there and work on my timing for future banter, whit and humour, just happy inside that I am capable of them

You don't even need to explain yourself as it was the posts that followed that caused the furore, and at the same time anyone that knows you is aware of the person you are and that you meant no malice.

But ultimately it doesn't matter, so I'd save your apologising time and time again. Because it will never be quite enough for those embittered enough to not give you the benefit of the doubt. Plus I'm not sure they can hear you from up there on their soapboxes

 

[bebo67]

I'm seeing the reason why so many members are deserting this site altogether and it's not for the reasons mentioned.

I'll be first to admit in hindsight that silly and irrelevant 'contributions' were made to this thread, and it snowballed from there.

It has long been acknowledged and accepted......but what is genuinely laughable is certain members piping up with their agendas to seemingly get others reprimanded, nay banned, when their sole contributions amount to nothing more than bile whenever I see them 'comment', and wanting to police the forum.

Apart from the initial points that were all taken on board I can see some members positively foaming at the mouth to get their digs in

I will say that overall more 'on-hands' mods at all hours could have nipped this in the bud there and then. Something like "Guys, let's go easy with the joking and see what the OP needs', although you'll find in most cases, it's fairly self-regulated. To suggest that every thread is hijacked is just nonsense.

But please, anyone else that wants to come forward to have a pop please do so, I mean half the thread is just that eh

I've kept my mouth shut so far! Lol.

 

[Harry_BKK]

Oh Just remembered she not from EU correct? Which means Madre is not applicable to this case spefically or would she still fall under that license of the MGA?

@Elena777 - Where you from again?

Just checked she is from Russia according to her profile.

That is the part I questioned right from the start. The T&Cs quote "Players from Malta and those playing under the MGA licence".

Who exactly plays under the MGA licence because initially the licence was needed to offer gaming services within the EU.

This is another grey area IMO, same as when 21BET was displaying the MGA seal but only NetEnt games were running under MGA and the rest had no licence but they were allowed to have the MGA seal on the site simply because they had one provider that was licensed by the MGA.

That changed in 2019 as the MGA is now requesting that a casino with an MGA licence can only offer games which are in itself licensed by the MGA.

But that still does not answer the question who exactly is playing under the MGA licence. Is it everyone else that does not fall under UKGC, DKK, Swedish Spelinspektionen and other licenses where countries issued their own, e.g. Italy, Spain or Romania? Or only all other EU countries and the ROW is basically playing with no licence?

 

[paul7388]

Hopefully the OP will return and do a PAB and then we can all find out what happened maybe. Noone has a clue as to why VS has not paid after the ruling so everything here is all speculation. But fact is they have asked the OP to do a PAB so must be willing to share info with Max but unless OP does the PAB we will be none the wiser to anything that has happened.

As for all the comments about infantile behaviour well i have kept out of it. But let's just blame it all on that damned bear and move on lol.

 

[maxd]

As it happens the folks at VS considered the PAB to NOT have been closed because they received nothing from the player to indicate that it was.
ADR rules in the EU are that the complainant is free to close their case at any time BUT they must communicate that wish to the ADR. This was never done, the complainant simply stopped responding. In that context I have been discussing this case with them (VS) for the past hour or so. I can say that:

• the ADR's decision in this case was apparently given without including evidence VS wanted to present. As such VS did not feel compelled to respect the decision that was given. FTR per the EU rules the ADR is _compelled_ to accept evidence presented by the parties to the dispute. It's not optional. In this I can understand VS's decision to set the ADR's ruling aside.
• as is sometimes the situation with cases of this type there is a good deal of information that cannot be made public because to do so would damage the casino's ability to protect their business. Suffice it to say that the case presented by the player here is woefully incomplete and misleading. As such I will be changing the title of this thread to something better representing the actual dispute.
• based on what I know at this time I would say the VS's action against this player is justified and I support their decision.

So, there it is. The bottom line is that the debate here has been based on a vacuum of relevant information. As much as I understand the desire to support an innocent player being mistreated I submit that there is much, much more to this story than that.

 

[Borgie]

As it happens the folks at VS considered the PAB to NOT have been closed because they received nothing from the player to indicate that it was.
ADR rules in the EU are that the complainant is free to close their case at any time BUT they must communicate that wish to the ADR. This was never done, the complainant simply stopped responding. In that context I have been discussing this case with them for the past hour or so. I can say that:

• the ADR's decision in this case was apparently given without including evidence VS wanted to present. As such VS did not feel compelled to respect the decision that was given. FTR per the EU rules the ADR is _compelled_ to accept evidence presented by the parties to the dispute. It's not optional. In this I can understand VS's decision to set the ADR's ruling aside.
• as is sometimes the situation with cases of this type there is a good deal of information that cannot be made public because to do so would damage the casino's ability to protect their business. Suffice it to say that the case presented by the player here is woefully incomplete and misleading. As such I will be changing the title of this thread to something better representing the actual dispute.
• based on what I know at this time I would say the VS's action against this player is justified and I support their decision.

So, there it is. The bottom line is that the debate here has been based on a vacuum of relevant information. As much as I understand the desire to support an innocent player being mistreated I submit that there is much, much more to this story than that.

So is there a timescale for both parties to submit information within? Who sets that timescale and what happens if one party doesnt provide the info necessary for the ADR to make an informed decision. Does the case get to be decided on the basis that one party didnt submit any evidence. The OP mentioned the case had been with the ADR for 2 months. This may or may not be true. If it were true is 2 months not long enough for evidence to be provided? Just curious really .

 

[Harry_BKK]

Thanks for the update @maxd

At last, pitchforks can go back into the basement folks! As in most cases, there is always more to the case than we get told by an OP.

@Borgie AFAIK, the max is 6 months to make a judgement.

 

[Borgie]

Thanks for the update @maxd

At last, pitchforks can go back into the basement folks! As in most cases, there is always more to the case than we get told by an OP.

@Borgie AFAIK, the max is 6 months to make a judgement.

So that ADR closed the case too soon

 

[Harry_BKK]

So that ADR closed the case too soon

Depends if he felt that he was in a position to make a judgement. It is up to the arbiter to make that decision but usually, they will always wait to hear from both sides.

 

[colinsunderland]

As it happens the folks at VS considered the PAB to NOT have been closed because they received nothing from the player to indicate that it was.
ADR rules in the EU are that the complainant is free to close their case at any time BUT they must communicate that wish to the ADR. This was never done, the complainant simply stopped responding. In that context I have been discussing this case with them for the past hour or so. I can say that:

• the ADR's decision in this case was apparently given without including evidence VS wanted to present. As such VS did not feel compelled to respect the decision that was given. FTR per the EU rules the ADR is _compelled_ to accept evidence presented by the parties to the dispute. It's not optional. In this I can understand VS's decision to set the ADR's ruling aside.
• as is sometimes the situation with cases of this type there is a good deal of information that cannot be made public because to do so would damage the casino's ability to protect their business. Suffice it to say that the case presented by the player here is woefully incomplete and misleading. As such I will be changing the title of this thread to something better representing the actual dispute.
• based on what I know at this time I would say the VS's action against this player is justified and I support their decision.

So, there it is. The bottom line is that the debate here has been based on a vacuum of relevant information. As much as I understand the desire to support an innocent player being mistreated I submit that there is much, much more to this story than that.

So did VS not supply the evidence or did they supply it and the ADR decide not to use it, as theres quite a big difference there.
If they did send it then surely the ADR considered it and ruled it not admissible for some reason, in they didn't send it, then why not? Why don't VS's challenge the decision if they sent evidence and it wasn't considered?

I still say, Videoslots terms are very clear. Under £5k the ruling is binding. It doesn't say 'unless we don't agree with it'. Whats the point of having terms and conditions if they aren't going to be followed.

 

[nikantw]

Thanks @maxd for the update.

I learned one or two things from this thread so it was definitely useful

 

[spiker1977]

I still say, Videoslots terms are very clear. Under £5k the ruling is binding. It doesn't say 'unless we don't agree with it'. Whats the point of having terms and conditions if they aren't going to be followed.

Casinos will follow the terms and conditions when they favor the casino not the other way ..

 

[maxd]

... Whats the point of having terms and conditions if they aren't going to be followed.

As I believe I've already stated, extenuating circumstances apply here. Based on the evidence available I'm satisfied VS has acted fairly and reasonably. But thanks for the reminder, the OP's status here at Casinomeister needs updating.

 

[colinsunderland]

As I believe I've already stated, extenuating circumstances apply here. Based on the evidence available I'm satisfied VS has acted fairly and reasonably. But thanks for the reminder, the OP's status here at Casinomeister needs updating.

So the ADR didn't?
Surely VS's then have a way to challenge the decision?

 

[maxd]

... Surely VS's then have a way to challenge the decision?

As far as I can recall there is no "appeals" process. I suspect the issue could legitimately be bumped up to the regulator. I'm not aware that that has been done.

 

[colinsunderland]

As far as I can recall there is no "appeals" process. I suspect the issue could legitimately be bumped up to the regulator. I'm not aware that that has been done.

Well I respectfully disagree with whats happened here. The ADR ruled against them, VS should either take it further or abide by their decision. The fact is, VS's T&C's clearly state the ADR decision to be binding, nothing in their T&C's state that its only binding when they agree with it. I am 100% confident if the OP took them to court, VS would lose, not that its ever going to happen for this amount and it being cross border, but then I'm sure Videoslots are aware of that. As us players are told regularly, T&C's are there for a reason, if you breach them, don't expect to keep the money you won or whatever.

I don't claim to know if the ADR decision was the correct one as obviously I can't see both sets of evidence, but I genuinely don't think that is the issue here. I trust it was incorrect or you wouldn't have said as much, but that isn't the issue. If a casino can break it's own T&C's when it feels like it, then that sets dangerous grounds going forward.

 

[maxd]

... If a casino can break it's own T&C's when it feels like it, then that sets dangerous grounds going forward.

There are clauses in the Terms that cover the particulars of this case and as such the casino did not break the specific Term you are referring to without justification, and there is good precedent for them to have done as they did.

The bottom line is that you don't know much about this case at all. Not your fault specifically, just the nature of the beast here. But you are speaking in general, moralizing terms so sweeping statements like that are pretty irresponsible.

You seem to think you're the only person looking out for the common good and in that you are both wrong and misguided. Consider for a few moments who you are speaking to. If that doesn't give you cause to nuance your bombast a little then I'd have to say you are pontificating because you like the sound of your own voice, not because the circumstances call for it.

 

[colinsunderland]

There are clauses in the Terms that cover the particulars of this case and as such the casino did not break the specific Term you are referring to without justification, and there is good precedent for them to have done as they did.

The bottom line is that you don't know much about this case at all. Not your fault specifically, just the nature of the beast here. But you are speaking in general, moralizing terms so sweeping statements like that are pretty irresponsible.

You seem to think you're the only person looking out for the common good and in that you are both wrong and misguided. Consider for a few moments who you are speaking to. If that doesn't give you cause to nuance your bombast a little then I'd have to say you are pontificating because you like the sound of your own voice, not because the circumstances call for it.

Which clause covers this?

I'll be honest, your attitude stinks here. Just because I question something you have said, you start having a go at me, and not for the first time. It's a forum, for discussion. If you mean it to be 'what I say goes and no one can question me' then just ban me as I don't want to be a member of a forum that has staff that act as dictators.

 

[Borgie]

There are clauses in the Terms that cover the particulars of this case and as such the casino did not break the specific Term you are referring to without justification and precedent. Seeing things in black and white all the time may simply mean you are colour blind.

totally understand what you are saying

Are you able to tell us whether VS evidence was provided to the other ADR or did they decide on behalf of OP with no evidence ?

 

[Borgie]

Which clause covers this?

I'll be honest, your attitude stinks here. Just because I question something you have said, you start having a go at me, and not for the first time. It's a forum, for discussion. If you mean it to be 'what I say goes and no one can question me' then just ban me as I don't want to be a member of a forum that has staff that act as dictators.

I agree its a forum for discussion but a moderator will often be party to things we cannot be so will have to keep stoom on occasions

Colin - you like black and white and I totally get that but unfortunately there are always many shades of grey too . You often present your own opinions as facts or it appears that way and they aren't always facts they are your interpretations - that s fine . This isn't personal but your direct approach can have the same affect on others that Max is having on you right now .

You are a massive asset to this forum so don't take your ball and go home we want you to stay . Let it go

 

[colinsunderland]

I agree its a forum for discussion but a moderator will often be party to things we cannot be so will have to keep stoom on occasions

Colin - you like black and white and I totally get that but unfortunately there are always many shades of grey too . You often present your own opinions as facts or it appears that way and they aren't always facts they are your interpretations - that s fine . This isn't personal but your direct approach can have the same affect on others that Max is having on you right now .

You are a massive asset to this forum so don't take your ball and go home we want you to stay . Let it go

I understand that but saying there are clauses that cover this, but not saying what they are isn't exactly open and contributing to the discussion. I couldn't see any and if I'm wrong, I'll happily apologise and accept that. Being told I'm wrong with nothing to back that up isn't really good, if it were me, I would back up my statement with the clause, as I have done many times in the past.

However, the post does not need this

Consider for a few moments who you are speaking to. If that doesn't give you cause to nuance your bombast a little then I'd have to say you are pontificating because you like the sound of your own voice, not because the circumstances call for it.

I don't insult people on here, and I don't expected to be insulted, especially not by a mod, for daring to have a different view of things. If thats acceptable, then theres no point me being here.

 

[maxd]

... Are you able to tell us whether VS evidence was provided to the other ADR or did they decide on behalf of OP with no evidence ?

All I can say is that what I would have considered a crucial piece of evidence was not admitted and the decision was apparently made without it.

Also, thought this worth mentioning, the final clause of the "Complaints" section of the Terms say this:

If you remain unhappy you can contact the Malta Gaming Authority ( MGA)

As I mentioned earlier if the OP had an issue with VS's final decision they should have gone straight to the MGA.

 

[maxd]

Which clause covers this?

I've already said I can't discuss it in detail.

I'll be honest, your attitude stinks here. ...

The feeling is mutual. And your immediate invocation of the "dictator" BS is a fine indication of why. I said "nuance your bombast" not "STFU". Make the distinction or don't, your call.

As to "not the first time" I'll tell you what I would tell anyone in your specific situation: speak bullshit, expect pain. That has been precisely the reason for our recent confrontations and my bottom line on this remains the same: don't pretend something is fact when it is your opinion.

Whether you and I see eye-to-eye or not the basic truth as far as I can see is that we are both striving for the same thing: fair and reasonable treatment of players who are very much in a dis-empowered situation. Hence my statement "consider who you are speaking to". Nothing more, nothing less.

 

[colinsunderland]

All I can say is that what I would have considered a crucial piece of evidence was not admitted and the decision was apparently made without it.

Also, thought this worth mentioning, the final clause of the "Complaints" section of the Terms say this:


As I mentioned earlier if the OP had an issue with VS's final decision they should have gone straight to the MGA.

Apparently made without it? So presumably you have made your decision based on what Videoslots have told you, without speaking to the ADR to find out why the evidence wasn't admitted? How is your decision any more valid than the ADR's if you haven't spoken with the 3 parties involved?

I've already said I can't discuss it in detail.



The feeling is mutual. And your immediate invocation of the "dictator" BS is a fine indication of why. I said "nuance your bombast" not "STFU". Make the distinction or don't, your call.

As to "not the first time" I'll tell you what I would tell anyone in your specific situation and with your history of outraged misinformation: speak bullshit, expect pain.

You can't discuss a clause in Videoslots terms, that are clearly available, on their site, for anyone to read?

Ok, to put this to bed, can you link to one of the precedents that allow a casino to ignore an ADR's ruling, when they have already agreed before the decision is made, that it will be binding? Surely you aren't prevented from doing that?

Presumably Videoslots have complained to the MGA about this ruling? Or are they just judge and jury themselves when they don't like a decision?

 

[mack341]

Is there a reason VS have shared information via this PAB process and not via the appointed ADR, or have the adr ignored the evidence/information which has been crucial to deciding against the player here?

 

[maxd]

@colinsunderland : no, I won't. This is not your PAB and you are no party to the process. If you want public debate of complaints you'll have to go elsewhere.

 

[Borgie]

I think Harry said earlier that there is a timeframe of 6 months for everyone to submit their evidence so it sounds like the ADR jumped the gun deciding on behalf of OP without it in a lot under 6 months

 

[Borgie]

Is there a reason VS have shared information via this PAB process and not via the appointed ADR, or have the adr ignored the evidence/information which has been crucial to deciding against the player here?

From what Max has said it would seem the ADR didnt have that evidence - that's as I understand it

 

[maxd]

Is there a reason VS have shared information via this PAB process and not via the appointed ADR ...

VS and I discussed the matter after the designated ADR had given their decision. The evidence they mentioned as having been ignored was basic stuff BUT outside the remit of ADRs in other jurisdictions. Perhaps the designated ADR had their reasons for not considering this evidence, I couldn't say.

 

[colinsunderland]

@colinsunderland : no, I won't. This is not your PAB and you are no party to the process. If you want public debate of complaints you'll have to go elsewhere.

Didn't think so.

 

[maxd]

...Or are they just judge and jury themselves when they don't like a decision?

Didn't think so.

If is exactly that kind of attitude that is putting us in each other's face. You assume shit, ignore the evidence you don't like, and you make accusations without, I would say, looking at the larger picture.

How is that helpful? What progress for anyone does that achieve? It's just fodder for forum flame-outs and that isn't going to continue.

 

[greylady]

I am being devil's advocate here and I can see both sides to this (max's and Colin's) - Colin has asked some valid and legitimate questions, I myself have pontificated over VS terms and conditions in this instance and couldn't see a get out clause when the ADR's decision was final - did they have a specific reason for ignoring evidence?

On the other hand I have to respect that Max has further information to hand but the resorting to insults I don't agree with - just my opinion for what it's worth, the 'beef' should be private.

 

[maxd]

... did they have a specific reason for ignoring evidence?

I have had no communications with the ADR so I can't speak to what their reasoning may have been. However, as mentioned above, some of the evidence on offer is beyond the remit of ADRs in other jurisdictions. Whether that played a part in the ADR's decision is unknown.

Not sure if it's obvious but that evidence mentioned is something I for one would have considered crucial to the case at hand. We have fought for our belief that to consider such evidence is important and necessary to making fair judgements. The direction in some jurisdictions, the UK for example, is for ADRs to not seek or consider such evidence. We can't accept that and have had to make some tough (meaning costly) decisions accordingly.

 

[bebo67]

I have no love loss for VS, as everyone knows, BUT, if they were not able to provide evidence for what ever reason. Not enough time, or what ever, and the decision was made without their side, then I agree that they should not have to pay either. For them to come forward and say " submit a PAB", that allows for VS, to be able to tell their side of the story, and that is only fair. Clauses are there to protect both sides, not just the player, or the casino.

 

[Nordog]

So when a page has their own ADR that a player use that the casino tells them to complain to and that ADR is refusing to listen to the casino, and also makes a judgement that favour the player its the players fault?

If videoslots cant trust their own recommended ADR, maybe its about time to find one they will trust and respect?

This whole case feels fishy for me. Even if the ADR made a judgement videoslots didnt agree with, the correct route would be to respect the player and change ADR to someone who do their job better.

Not to simply ignore it and waste the players time, cause if videoslots used an adr that would do their job and that videoslots would have enough faith in to trust the case would already be over.

 

[Jono777]

We members only know what we read.

As was said earlier (Max? - not scrolled back) there is quite probably a lot more to this, the 'lot more' being stuff none of us are privy to.

 

[Nordog]

I agree. But nomatter what for the future its better for videoslots to actually get an adr that does their job correct to avoid such mess.

 

[geordiecolin]

I'm seeing the reason why so many members are deserting this site altogether and it's not for the reasons mentioned.

I'll be first to admit in hindsight that silly and irrelevant 'contributions' were made to this thread, and it snowballed from there.

It has long been acknowledged and accepted......but what is genuinely laughable is certain members piping up with their agendas to seemingly get others reprimanded, nay banned, when their sole contributions amount to nothing more than bile whenever I see them 'comment', and wanting to police the forum.

Apart from the initial points that were all taken on board I can see some members positively foaming at the mouth to get their digs in

I will say that overall more 'hands-on' mods at all hours could have nipped this in the bud there and then. Something like "Guys, let's go easy with the joking and see what the OP needs', although you'll find in most cases, it's fairly self-regulated. To suggest that every thread is hijacked is just nonsense.

But please, anyone else that wants to come forward to have a pop please do so, I mean half the thread is just that eh

One or two dimentional folk who can not deal with anything else easily.
That includes mods who are the first to dish out insults to anyone who dares to post anything that conflicts to what they are arguing and those who post rarely yet seem to make their objections appear to be the focus of the powers that be.
I love this site obviously because I still post in here.
But it's growth is stiffled by its moderation. Especially by those in the highest positions and their behaviour