Response to Community Code of Conduct


I amazed. You closed the thread on Starling the other night when I did the same as you? It has to be the same rules for all. It works both ways . I find you very stifling when it comes to free speech. IMO. :crossed_fingers:t2:


Well the topic was re opened so we shall assume they did consider the Closure of the thread unwarranted perhaps. I too don’t want to make this personal. I appreciate your passion, but it has to be impartial.


Have you ever considered that the Starling forum is quieter because there is less reason to Complain? People only generally voice Dissent. happy customers are less frequent posters imo


That really is the nub of the whole thread - yes I saw the face palm.

As the originator no I don’t require you to split it out - it is how humans interact.


Deleted as PM sent

(Alex Sherwood) #188

Just a quick reminder, we split topics because:

  • it makes it easier to follow discussions in the thread
  • people can see what’s being discussed in the updated topics feed
  • it enables users to control which topics they follow - they can mute topics they don’t want to see & turn on notifications for those they want to follow closely
  • it makes it easier to find topics in the search
  • that prevents duplicate topics
  • duplicate topics are bad because:
    • people repeat / have to repeat things that have been said in other topics
    • people’s ideas / bug reports & resolutions get lost
    • it’s sometimes hard to get a sense of the consensus of users on a particular topic. If an idea is suggested, the likes for that idea can’t be totalled up

If you have any questions about why a Leader’s moved a post, please DM them :slight_smile: We’ve always been able to address concerns about split / merged threads quickly so far.

Edit - to add more benefits.

(Graham - Mental health professional) #189

Right on the money !

Quite a lot of Starling Guru traffic (under the radar to the Team forum Lead) is about just this. Duplication and drift in threads is frustrating for those engaged in the conversations and, importantly too, disconcerting to newcomers.

Tough gig but crucial to a good forum experience.:slightly_smiling_face:


We will have to agree to disagree then.


We may dislike inconsistency in the way moderation is done, or the way a moderator may say something, but despite our annoyance at times, it would surely be total chaos if not moderated at all! It is just a matter of how much, when, and how well.


I agree with your initial point about threads being split too quickly at times.

But given the “anime” example up there, I think that was a prime opportunity to split into a different topic.

That being said… If you had been following the thread from the start (or had caught up with the latest post), reading an extra 12 posts of unrelated anime content probably isn’t a big deal.

But… If you were reading through it from the start (or came to the conversation late), and came to a big chunk of unrelated content which you didn’t care about… You may switch off and not read any more.

I see both sides of it, but as @anon44204028 has just said (whilst I was typing), the moderation is necessary, but perhaps consistency is king.




(Graham - Mental health professional) #194

I’ve observed @podgib to articulately challenge both Monzo and Starling on a number of occasions - certainly not wedded to either bank. His most recent post is an example of that.

I struggle to see why he deserves that derogatory response from you @alexs. Such a response might have emanated from a less knowledgeable member, but not, I suggest, from a Leader.

(Alex Sherwood) #195

I didn’t say he was.

I think you’ve I’m misinterpreted the tone of my comments. I was simply pointing out why his post didn’t make sense to me.

(Eve) #196

I struggle to see how that is derogatory, to be honest. And I think we shouldn’t comment on tone, since that often can be wrong- and focus on responding to the content instead. Alex can be abrasive and seeing things purely in black/white but I think it’s a stretch to say his tone is demeaning or abusive. I’m sure if Geoff feels personally attacked by his response to the reasons given it can be something they take up privately between them or the staff.

(Graham - Mental health professional) #197

I didn’t mention demeaning or abusive and Geoff certainly can speak for himself.

I understand that commenting on perceived tone can be fraught with misinterpretation, but sometimes content can appear judgmental. I felt that in this case.

I took the view, perhaps wrongly, that Leaders would/should not engage in that way, but that could be me misunderstanding the role of Leaders.

Just realised I contributed to high jacking the thread. Apologies for that, definitely…


As a “Leader” and perceived representative of Monzo, would you kindly explain why this is a good thing? This response seems snarky at best, poorly judged and combative at worst.

In addition:

Seems to be mocking the poster and Monzo customer. Is this a good, or acceptable, way for a Monzo Leader to engage on the forum?

This is my first visit for a long time and reading things like this makes me glad. I thought this was a friendly community, I don’t expect to see snark like this coming from a “Leader”. The new FinTech revolution is refreshing as there is a focus on customer-friendly support and communication. Your response falls well short of that.

Combative and mocking is not a good suit for someone in a Leader position on here, I wouldn’t expect that of my legacy bank so seeing it on here is bitterly disappointing.

(Alex Sherwood) #199

Firstly, what I say doesn’t represent Monzo. Leaders are free to have opinions & discuss ideas just like everyone else in this community. I haven’t been asked to adopt Monzo’s ‘tone of voice’ & I won’t always do so.

Secondly, we’re not here to discuss the tone of my posts, in fact it’s against the community guidelines. So please feel free to discuss the points that I made or don’t, it’s up to you.

But I won’t be explaining the tone that you’ve perceived me to have taken, which is easy to misinterpret online.


I never mentioned tone, actually. And your response to me is similarly combative.

Let’s not hide behind the “tone” nonsense, I’m also familiar with the rules. My issue is that a poster posted something you didn’t agree with and you made a point of mocking him.

In response to your flippant “feel free to discuss the points I made, or don’t. It’s up to you”. Well, you’ll note I did ask you why you thought that the introduction of ATM fees is a good thing. A point which you failed to respond to, choosing rather to try and (wrongly) dismiss my post as having a grievance with your tone.

Interestingly, instead of trying to diffuse the situation, you have chosen to be combative with me also. Again, not how I would expect a Monzo Leader to react.

(Alex Sherwood) #201

Geoff mentioned that he would only be using Monzo for foreign ATM withdrawals. That implies that he only wants to use a service that costs Monzo money. Since Monzo have introduced the withdrawal fees, he can only cost the company a fairly small amount of money before he has to cover those costs himself.


Get used to it. It’s all you get now, sarky/snooty/deear leader comments from the same few people who then explain to you it’s impossible to be shouted down and not to reply to the tone.

The forum is good for a read, but my god think twice for sharing a dissenting opinion.

Ask/read around, it’s becoming a familiar story.