Protocol Discussion

S

Songsheet

At the Start
Joined
May 2, 2003
Messages
3,217
Location
Somerset
I'd like to ask for your sensible and non-inflamatory opinions about previously banned members reappearing under a different name.

I think we're all agreed that from time-to-time, it's necessary to ban some members.

However, as it also would appear that some find the place completely irresistable and return under a new guise, what should be the correct procedure?

For example, Phil was banned, has openly been readmitted by Col under a transparent name and has been posting away very happily and in the same manner as the rest of us - sometimes contentious, sometimes not but well within the board's boundaries - it's great.

Should there be an automatic time limit on any ban, say three months, after which that person can ask Col to be readmitted ?

Personally, as long as their original 'offence' wasn't illegal - ie slanderous or threatening, then I'm happy for folk to come back should they want to and would prefer that they are only able to continue to post under their original moniker. That was it's easier for us Mods to just keep a weather eye on their forum behaviour for a while.
 
If someone applies to be re-admitted and Col agrees that's fine . Banned members such as jejquade and Derek appearing under new names should be immediately banned again . For example Col banned Ian Davies and then banned his Henry Cecil identity too.
 
Provided as you say that they do not offend people when they return, I have no particular objection to Derek or others returning. I would object to Joe returning as he was grossly offensive and Danoli/Singspeil/Jejguade as her sole raison d'être was to cause trouble.
 
I personally would let them all back in regardless as to their past endeavours .... if they transgressed ! again!!! well then ban um again.. it adds flavour to the threads and like you said Swirly got banned but now seems a breath of fresh air ;)(pay me later phil)... :P :D
 
A few things -

I was never banned. When I used the name "Swirly Chaser" a situation arose involving another member of the forum and a false accusation was made against me. As a result, the name "Swirly Chaser" was put on suspension and any posts that were made under that name had to be approved by a moderator. None of them were ever going to be approved as long as the accusation was not disproved.

Four months later, after countless personal abuse towards me on this forum to which I was unable to respond (99% of the abusers would not have taken part if I had been able to respond), the matter was finally resolved and the person who had made the accusation was exposed as a liar.

I began posting again and did so for about 3 months before I decided to stop using the name "Swirly Chaser" and use my own name.

No one else was involved in the decision for me to change names, though Col was notified about it immediately and had no problem with it.

As for those who have actually been banned, Col never even got round to banning Dayna Jane so the fact that jejquade, Ian Davies and Derek Burgess are banned is certainly saying something!

If you break the rules, repeatedly, you deserve the punishment, even if it is only an internet forum. Arguments are healthy sometimes, but sometimes you get the same people only popping up when an argument breaks out and in my opinion that's just not on.
 
:lol: :lol: I'd like Dayna Jane back soon - it's Goody Gloriousness soon, and I'm just SO undecided about my accessories this year. With her French savoir faire, I think I could improve the image a bit... Dayna, darling, are you available for modish consultations?

I'm with Phil on this. If people are truly obnoxious, deliberately and/or repeatedly overstep the Board's rules, and certainly all those who come on board purely to make mischief, threaten, are let back in, then I think those of us who've enjoyed the friendliness of the site will just bugger off, and leave everyone to the anarchy. We can accommodate a lot of views and opinions which aren't necessarily our own, by and large (Kotkijet, a one-shot wonder, perhaps, but stimulating while s/he lasted), and the newcomers who've joined recently certainly bring a breath of fresh air with them.

I don't hold with anarchy, a lack of respect, and attempts to subvert and vandalize the place. I wouldn't want such people back, any more than I'd welcome a return visit by people who'd smashed my windows or wrecked my garden.
 
Not quite sure if this has achieved anything - apologies Phil for any inaccuracies in your own particular case but there have been mutterings as to a couple of supposedly 'new' members phoenixing on here.

Personally, I couldn't give a proverbial who posts on here, just as long as they don't make illegal posts or abusive, personal rants.

Half the time, even though I look in pretty regularly, I miss the action prior to a suspension or outright ban - never did see which was Ian Davies went - and I'm always way behind sussing out fake ids..... B)
 
I suppose the 3 month ban does allow a period of time to reflect and for things to cool down a bit. Half the time people are banned because a minor disagreement turns into a full scale war because neither side can back down. If the person transgresses for a second time after the obligatory warnings, out they go.

The only thing I will say, is that we are definitely missing a couple at least who have taken sabaticals due to on-going feuds, even if they weren't directly involved.
I just wish more of the newbies would come out from their hiding places and try posting more.
 
Originally posted by PDJ@Jul 14 2005, 07:58 PM
Provided as you say that they do not offend people when they return, I have no particular objection to Derek or others returning. I would object to Joe returning as he was grossly offensive and Danoli/Singspeil/Jejguade as her sole raison d'être was to cause trouble.
Click to expand...
I agree with that.
 
nah let them all back in...... before long you'll have the magnificent 20 only posting?? on here, comming to think of it, that's about that number now or very near....we have a lot of new members but a few may be to frightened to post in case they get chastised or have posts deleted....

or change the moderators... newbie mods could then view a posting in a different light... and not take umbrage to a post or poster!! that they don't like............?

Think about it???????????? its called common sense and it could prevail and come to fruition too... as some posts are posted within the boards parrameters but because a mod don't like it he deletes it....

or have a sticky page that all deleted posts go into (Jules you'll miss nothing then) then you have the living proof of the actual thread so its not controlled by one mod but everyone can view/see it too, and can then make their comment with regards if it should have been deleted or not?.... we had it on a few other boards why not on this one as well?....

These are constructive ideas not to to pick a row :angy: :angy: but to make sure harmony applies :lol: accross the board at most/all times and you get a further input provided by a larger number of posters therefore giving one a chance to debate further diverse topics than at present and posted by different people too............. :rolleyes:
 
I nominate - again - Phil Waters as a Moderator.

Merlin, put yourself forward as a Moderator, because you don't like any of the moderating actions so far, and you clearly think you can control the board better than those currently doing it.

I nominate Merlin as an additional Moderator, since he's keen to see changes.
 
Jon thanks but I think the sticky page would be the first to try it makes everyone!!!! Answerable and really makes sense as to why a post is/was deleted and is worth a try?

If I took up the reigns :P (excuse the pun) I feel that I would be far more diplomatic than the current.....though I may not treat the strong language by some!!(Hyphenated! Yes agreed) as there are supposedly youngsters viewing these threads too......

It is not my intention to seek a post as a moderator though...and it was not posted with that aim in mind... only a few thoughts on how one gets fair play for all and encourages others to post as well and yes maybe a 1 month sentence if someone transgresses, after an inquest/debate? (With the posts still there for all to see on the sticky page) with the option of returning not sine die as of present! Obviously depending on the charge?
Then if he or she transgresses again a 2 months ban, third time goodbye!!...

but the point I also make is that if as now a post is deleted, then there is no way someone can debate or appeal whether it was right or wrong to have been deleted…. and this will also stop any favouritism on the board too, as everyone is then treated as an equal!!...

Its not a lot to ask you know and is certainly worth a try?......
 
I thought I WAS making sense in putting you and Merlin forward! :D

Merlin, yes, I know you weren't putting yourself forward with the aim of being a Moderator, but why not give it a go? You could try out your ideas, too, and see if they work? There's nothing lost in trying. And Phil, I think now that you're not trying to force us to agree that weight doesn't matter (you know we ALL agreed with you, really!), I think you ought to try it out. It's a good idea to have a handful of Mods in case - as happens - one or two are on holiday/sick/leave...

Seriously, re your idea, Merlin: the only snag is if a post goes against the Board's rules. There would be no need to sticky it, because it should be deleted, and it doesn't have to be put up for everyone to see and to debate its worthiness. The Mod tells the author of the post why s/he has deleted it, giving a reason, and that's it. Suppose I say, for example, "I think that all Muslims should be thrown out of Britain". Under the Board's (and, in fact, the Govt.'s) rules, that's not acceptable, it can't be stickied because it's showing religious hatred, and it has to go. I should also be warned by the Moderators. There's no need for the whole membership to debate on it, or whether I should have been warned or not. If I continue to post in a similar vein, then I need to be banned, and again no-one needs to debate whether I should have been, or not.
 
Hmm... not so sure now. After some sparkling form, looks like you picked up an 'F' that's snookered your chances now. Hey-ho, and such promise, too...
 
Well the teacher who graded the "F" has since been found to be drunk while on duty. So all the grades are void.
 
Originally posted by krizon@Jul 17 2005, 01:32 AM

The Mod tells the author of the post why s/he has deleted it, giving a reason, and that's it.
Click to expand...
I have had comments deleted and even a whole thread was deleted recently, and not even a murmour despite my numerous requests as to why. Perhaps some people get an explanation and others just get ignored.
 
A response has just arrived from Ardross, along with an explanation as to why another of my threads has been edited today.
 
OK, firstly if a thread is deleted - that is so it can't be read by others. Sticking it in a thread sort of defeats the purpose of deleting it!

Secondly on the subject of bannings. Does anyone actually know how bad someone has to get before they are banned? If anyone thinks I am bad for banning people (of which I think there have been less than 5 since the board started) you want to visit some other boards where you get banned for saying boo! Ian will never be allowed back on here for his comments on other boards when he was banned.

Regarding banned members re-registering - unless I know for sure it is them I cannot ban them. We always find out in the end though.

And for the record Phil was never banned, and I allowed his name change - which I would do for anyone. Considering a few different people have asked me if I would consider making him a mod, the decision can't have been that bad!
 
Back
Top