B
What a strange forum this is, sure there was good reason: overzealous moderation, fear of straight talking, willy envy etc...
If we are talking about the same thing then its a real shame- that's another member who's posts I take pleasure in reading gone for the forseeable.
Step forward the person who did the banning an explain your actions....
If we are talking about the same thing then its a real shame- that's another member who's posts I take pleasure in reading gone for the forseeable.
Step forward the person who did the banning an explain your actions....
Upvote
0
What a strange forum this is, sure there was good reason: overzealous moderation, fear of straight talking, willy envy etc...
If we are talking about the same thing then its a real shame- that's another member who's posts I take pleasure in reading gone for the forseeable.
Step forward the person who did the banning an explain your actions....[/quote]
You have more chance being struck by lightning..
Upvote
0
You have more chance being struck by lightning..
Maybe Jon will turn up here :http://www.businessdiscussionforums.co.uk/viewtopic.php?f=9&t=1835
Last edited:
Upvote
0
Because discussing individual moderation decisions are not apparently allowed in the forums - and given the "trigger happy" nature of infractions given recently, it's just not worth risk.
Long standing members who form a major part of the community just vanish in the night via the ban hammer and we are supposed to just accept it as the norm.
Steve
Upvote
0
What are you on about? My op was about Michael Winner.
Well obviously
I know that Beachy, I must have gotten my threads mixed up
You see, I'm a member on a space forum too, and we were involved in a discussion about what can easily be found on the Internet these days in terms of interstellar craft. It was suggested that all was required was a quick google, but I begged to differ.
Whilst 'googling' does indeed bring some results, it seems that the really special spaceships have gone missing, quite suddenly and with no explanation.
I can only surmise that something's happened to that particular craft, something's gone awry with the modifications which were made to it, in fact one member went as far as saying that the mods hadn't worked properly at all!
But anyway, I shan't ramble on anymore, Beachy I'm sorry I got confused sir
RIP Michael Winner.
Upvote
0
What are you on about? My op was about Michael Winner.
Well obviously
I know that Beachy, I must have gotten my threads mixed up
You see, I'm a member on a space forum too, and we were involved in a discussion about what can easily be found on the Internet these days in terms of interstellar craft. It was suggested that all was required was a quick google, but I begged to differ.
Whilst 'googling' does indeed bring some results, it seems that the really special spaceships have gone missing, quite suddenly and with no explanation.
I can only surmise that something's happened to that particular craft, something's gone awry with the modifications which were made to it, in fact one member went as far as saying that the mods hadn't worked properly at all!
But anyway, I shan't ramble on anymore, Beachy I'm sorry I got confused sir
RIP Michael Winner.
Upvote
0
For consistency though, I believe you need to be licenced to trade Sir, Earl Grey tea may be needed....
Steve
Upvote
0
Yes, having religiously searched for them, it turns out an old pal of mine is running it now, Simon Rearl. He's really friendly, he lets me abbreviate his name to Si, so now I know him as Si Rearl.
We were chatting over lunch the other day about things, you know, this and that, when his soup turned up.
You should have seen the consistency!
Apparently the chef, whose name was Roger, was once a ship's Captain, closer to the truth he was only the cabin boy it panned out. Used to supplement his income by busking in Wisbech with a guitar and three performing dogs, I tell you Beachy it was a real treat, if you ever get the chance to see someone who dances with poodles you should grab it.
Best be off, I have to be up early to go to the garden centre tomorrow. This bog soil the wife's picked up for me, the granules are too small. Yes, I need to exchange it for some Big Peat.
Sorry I've wandered off topic again haven't I!
He made a lot of good films huh?
Last edited:
Upvote
0
According to the rules:
This was not 6 months. Other (recently banned) members remain banned.
Just an (unhappy) observation.
Mods?
Steve
Upvote
0
You are quite right, the wording on the rules is out of date and needs updating. Earl is not the only member who has had a short ban.
Upvote
0
Thank you for the reply.
Does this mean that rules are being updated retrospectively to suit?
A conversation with Henry this morning seemed to indicate a standard "6 month" ban was very much in place for all bans.
I've just asked him for clarification on that.
Steve
Upvote
0
No it does not mean that. Earl was not the first to get a short ban. We are discussing this. I agree the rules need re-wording to clarify points. I don't know when the idea of a short ban was introduced, but that, and other things do need clarification and documented.
Upvote
0
With respect, should we - the paying members - not know what the rules are then is they are out of date on the site, but enforced diferrently?
How can we possibly follow something that is being "discussed" but not made a "rule"?
Where does is say anything about short bans? Henry confirmed ban times for members to me today and as "community manager" I have to take that as gospel.
Come on, at least give us a chance....
Steve
Upvote
0
Ok so now you are saying it is wrong to allow long term members to be treated as special cases when it comes to bans?
This is what we have been saying when we have said that we do a lot more than you realise to not lose long term members. As I have said many times, damned if we do, damned if we don't .
The system works thus, 3 strikes and an automatic ban hits until such time as the points drop below 300.
It is ONLY a 6 month ban if you get 300 points on the same day. So if you got a strike on jan 1st, a second on May 1st and a 3rd on June 30th, you would essentially be banned for a day, as the Jan1 st strike would run out on Jul 1st.
Did you think that somone is banned for 6 months from their last strike then? that isn't the case, and would explain a lot of the anger. However, that said, henry has the power to reduce suspensions or reverse infractions. I have asked him to reverse one yesterday that I issued, and he has. He can also reduce suspension times with the agreement of the member. We have done this on a number of occasions.
So maybe now you can see that the aim is not just to ban long term members, but the opposite
This is what we have been saying when we have said that we do a lot more than you realise to not lose long term members. As I have said many times, damned if we do, damned if we don't .
The system works thus, 3 strikes and an automatic ban hits until such time as the points drop below 300.
It is ONLY a 6 month ban if you get 300 points on the same day. So if you got a strike on jan 1st, a second on May 1st and a 3rd on June 30th, you would essentially be banned for a day, as the Jan1 st strike would run out on Jul 1st.
Did you think that somone is banned for 6 months from their last strike then? that isn't the case, and would explain a lot of the anger. However, that said, henry has the power to reduce suspensions or reverse infractions. I have asked him to reverse one yesterday that I issued, and he has. He can also reduce suspension times with the agreement of the member. We have done this on a number of occasions.
So maybe now you can see that the aim is not just to ban long term members, but the opposite
Last edited:
Upvote
0
When a member is given an infraction or a warning, it is because they have broken the rules as they stand at the time the post was made. It would be wrong to give an infraction to a member over a rule that had not been published.
As for ban times, what is wrong with Henry starting to be flexible and try out shorter bans to see if they work? However I agree with you it would be nice if that concept was documented in the rules. That said, if it is documented, and gives the idea that shorter bans may happen, will it encourage some to break the rules more in the idea that it may not be so bad?
On a personal note, I dislike automatic punishments, and would prefer flexibility.
As for ban times, what is wrong with Henry starting to be flexible and try out shorter bans to see if they work? However I agree with you it would be nice if that concept was documented in the rules. That said, if it is documented, and gives the idea that shorter bans may happen, will it encourage some to break the rules more in the idea that it may not be so bad?
On a personal note, I dislike automatic punishments, and would prefer flexibility.
Upvote
0
almost 12 months ago we discussed this very thing, in that a few long term members had picked up strikes and multiple warnings, and were at risk of being lost for 6 months, which essentially means for good.
I don't see why you are complaining though Steve, as it is not in the rules, because it is not part of the rules. The rules are clear as I stated above. but exceptions can be made, and these cses were exceptional.
I don't see why you are complaining though Steve, as it is not in the rules, because it is not part of the rules. The rules are clear as I stated above. but exceptions can be made, and these cses were exceptional.
Upvote
0
Hi James,
No, not at all - but if admin state they are sticking to the rules, why are they not?
See, this just adds to the confusion. What "points" for what? It's very inconsistent. The rules simply state warnings and strikes. There is no mention of points.
The rules stated are simple "three strikes and 6 month ban", yet I see a member banned only 2 weeks ago back online. Not that I have a problem with that, but it has been stated he had a "short ban".
James, I generally respect your moderating decisions (I've mentioned before) and I think you know what I'm getting at with this apparent difference of moderation. It's seeming to me as an "outsider" it's a rule for one and one for another.
Please, don't think I'm just "troliing" about this. I'm a paying member with a serious concern.
Steve
No, not at all - but if admin state they are sticking to the rules, why are they not?
See, this just adds to the confusion. What "points" for what? It's very inconsistent. The rules simply state warnings and strikes. There is no mention of points.
The rules stated are simple "three strikes and 6 month ban", yet I see a member banned only 2 weeks ago back online. Not that I have a problem with that, but it has been stated he had a "short ban".
James, I generally respect your moderating decisions (I've mentioned before) and I think you know what I'm getting at with this apparent difference of moderation. It's seeming to me as an "outsider" it's a rule for one and one for another.
Please, don't think I'm just "troliing" about this. I'm a paying member with a serious concern.
Steve
Upvote
0
When a member is given an infraction, that is 100 "points". When an account has 300 "points" (or 3 infractions) it is automatically banned for the 6 months.
As for one rule of one and one for another, I have never been a fan of fixed punishments, and have always felt that a punishment should reflect what was done and the context. Not all posts are equal, not all posts break the rules to the same extent as others. I believe that bans should reflect what was actually posted, rather than simply 3 naughty posts.
As for one rule of one and one for another, I have never been a fan of fixed punishments, and have always felt that a punishment should reflect what was done and the context. Not all posts are equal, not all posts break the rules to the same extent as others. I believe that bans should reflect what was actually posted, rather than simply 3 naughty posts.
Last edited:
Upvote
0
It's the inconsistency that's the issue - As an "outsider" I see one long term member banned for (IMO) speaking his mind for 6 months, and another for 2 weeks.
I personally think 6 month bans have no place here for any members who have helped build this community (especially when they have paid for membership!) other that in extreme cases.
Anyway, I've said my piece, take it as you will. Believe it or not, I am on your side - I've no interest in looking at threads from trolls and want the community to thrive, which is why I'm so concerned about recent events, but I have to speak my mind when something is wrong.
Steve
Last edited:
Upvote
0
Latest Articles
-
MTD for Income Tax: your first quarterly update is due 7 August.If you are a sole trader or landlord and your gross income from self-employment and property was...- maka
- Updated:
- 4 min read
-
Andy Burnham's Manifesto for Small Business, and How It Stacks Up Against Count BinfaceIf all goes to plan (or rather, to Labour's timetable), Andy Burnham will be sworn in as Prime...- Ozzy
- Updated:
- 5 min read
-
SEO in the Age of AI: What UK Small Businesses Actually Need to KnowTL;DR Search has shifted from "ten blue links" to answer engines, and the click is dying...
- Ozzy
- Updated:
- 11 min read
-
What Carphone Warehouse, Microsoft and Uber Have in Common: They Started in a DownturnThere's a comforting myth that you need a booming economy to start something. Cheap money...
- Ozzy
- Updated:
- 3 min read
-
What Makes a Small Business Actually Sellable?There's a question that a lot of small business owners never think to ask until they absolutely...
- Ozzy
- Updated:
- 5 min read