Member banned

[a447]

A member has been banned for violating the rules relating to lese majeste; viz:

3. Privacy, Anonymity & Posting Limitations
3.2 Posting Limitations
3.2.1.3 Negative references to Thailand royal family.

This decision was taken by the board owner, and arsenal and myself in our capacity as board moderators.

[bobsaigon2]

It's about time. It only took a few years!

[Smiles]

I'll bite ... who's the rules-breaking bastard?
I missed his posts on whatever he did. I assume that they too are down the toilet.
PM me if it's all just fake news.

[Smiles]

Just my feeling on this: if the board guidelines--quite rightly--do not allow any post which disparages the royal family in any way then surely just deleting the offending post solves any possible problems. Why go to the extreme and ban a Member when the offence itself can be wiped out almost immediately?
Was there any fore-warning to the Member?
Banning seems very harsh for a one-time offence. (At least I assume it's one-time)

[scottish-guy]

.....This decision was taken by the board owner, and arsenal and myself in our capacity as board moderators....

But But But.....I want to know what ChristianPFC said


5640

[a447]

Why go to the extreme and ban a Member when the offence itself can be wiped out almost immediately?

In my view, the offence should not occur in the first place. It is not our job to continually delete posts which are illegal in Thailand. It is the members' obligation to abide by the forum rules.


4.7 By agreeing to these rules, you warrant that you will not post any messages that are obscene, hateful, threatening, or otherwise violative of any laws.


Was there any fore-warning to the Member?

Yes. He was warned on August 6 this year:


Warning: It isn't just a sentence, it is moderation note - last note before your ban. Reminder: as per forum's rules you can't discuss this note on forum, and if you will do - it will be last what you will write on this forum. Thank you for your attention.


Banning seems very harsh for a one-time offence. (At least I assume it's one-time)

This was the third time.

[Moses]

But But But.....I want to know what ChristianPFC said

What been said at forum for moderators - left at forum for moderators. Discussions of moderators aren't public. Members will see only final decision.

Small add-on to first post: ban is temp. - for 1 month for now.

[Nirish guy]

And that last line all of s sudden turns the decision into one which is both measured and reasonable and as and when he's back he'll maybe take note next time.

[bobsaigon2]

But he will still be as critical, disparaging and offensive as usual. That's his nature.

[arsenal]

Any member posting something that even touches the well known laws of Thailand can expect similar consequences.

[cdnmatt]

Ok, cool. Who got banned though?

Is it really that big of a secret? Who was it?

[Smiles]

But he will still be as critical, disparaging and offensive as usual. That's his nature.
Perhaps Bob, but ... from the Board guidelines:


(B) What the Posting Guidelines CANNOT do:

"They cannot be used to protect individual Members from hurt feelings, getting upset, political incorrectness, rudeness, inappropriate and controversial commentary, their thread going-off-topic or such like. Sawatdee has a reputation for being an edgy message board: and to a reasonable degree we wish to keep it that way. Thus, if any of the problems outlined above bother you, then we suggest that you use the Ignore Feature."

[bobsaigon2]

Do you really think that anyone enjoys his comments? I'm aware that the posting guidelines would not rid the board of him. But it's a private organization, not subject to legal constraints. Owner can do what he wants. As I've said several times in the past. And several times in the past I've been reminded of the posting guidelines.

I do not expect him to be removed permanently unless he repeats his recent type of posts. Other board members have a greater ability than I do to tolerate him.

[scottish-guy]

Any member posting something that even touches the well known laws of Thailand can expect similar consequences.

Does that include the laws on prostitution?

Heartening to see your now a legal expert, Len - as well as knowing every other fucking thing. How do you manage it I wonder :lol:

And incidentally, Moses, I didn't really want to know what ChristianPFC had said because I strongly suspect he said nothing at all, as (unlike some Head Judges) Christian has a sense of proportion, and doesn't have an ego the size of Jupiter (I don't mean the GoGo bar).
However, feel free to tell me I'm wrong.

:D

[cdnmatt]

Oh snap, was it latin that got banned? hahahaha....

Or am I wrong? Who was it? Help a blind guy out, and tell me, who was it that gor banned?

[scottish-guy]

Frequent

[cdnmatt]

bOh, it was fequent? Can't say I like the guy, but will miss his smug, asshole, cynical outlook on life.

[Brad the Impala]

Could one of the Three Stooges(aka Moderators) confirm who they have banned. That would end the speculation and make it all seem a little more above board, and a little less like some overnight purge.

I'm hoping that it isn't a poster with whom one of the stooges has had a long standing beef.

[a447]

and make it all seem a little more above board......

Read the rules.


Moderation and Sanctions

4.3 4.3 A Moderating action or decision may be clearly explained in red within the post or thread concerned. A reference to the rule that has been breached will be included. In the case of loss of posting privileges, the advice will be sent by PM; it will not be delivered publicly.



I'm hoping that it isn't a poster with whom one of the stooges has had a long standing beef.

What took you so long?

If you want to discuss the member in question, I suggest you ask the board owner to suspend the following rule:


4.4 After the explanation has been published or sent by PM, all communication with the member(s) being sanctioned will be by PM or email. There will be no public discussion

[arsenal]

Scottish wrote.
" Heartening to see your now a legal expert, Len - as well as knowing every other fucking thing. How do you manage it I wonder."

Well with regard to the specific law in question, everyone is an expert because everyone knows it. Don't they?

On a personal note I hope that you, like Hilary Clinton can one day get over being denied the job you felt was yours by right. The board sympathises with your disappointment and believes that you can find some comfort in remaining a worthwhile, albeit junior, member.
Please feel free to drop in any time you're passing.

[Brad the Impala]

I don't want to "discuss the member in question", I just want to know who you have banned(later revised to one month only).

This doesn't seem an unreasonable question and if you had applied the guideline that you have quoted, 4.3, there would have been a note in red in the offending post that would have enabled us to see who was being banned.

Instead you decided to open a new thread on which others could post, thus rather contradicting your own assertion that Rule 4.4 needs to be suspended before any public discussion could take place.

In fact as seems obvious from the reading of 4.4 that is about communication with the member, and is irrelevant in the context of my simple request to confirm the board name of the person suspended, as has normally been done in the past.

[a447]

Re-read rule 4.3. You've conveniently omitted one word. Go look for it. (hint for you - it's after word number 5, but before word number 7)

Re-read rule 4.4., this time in conjunction with rule 4.3. which states "it will not be delivered publicly." The intent is clear.

Of course, I could mention the name "publicly" but only if Moses suspended that rule. But why would he, just to please you?

Got it?

What is it about the English language that you so often find so difficult to comprehend, brad?

[Brad the Impala]

if you had applied the guideline that you have quoted, 4.3, there would have been a note in red in the offending post that would have enabled us to see who was being banned.

I didn't claim that it was a rule, I even stated that it was a guideline, a point that most people would realise was an acknowledgement of the "may" in the sentence. Unfortunately that went over your head.

You've been trying to get Frequent(as it appears likely now that is who we are talking about) banned for a long time, ever since he provided an amusing report of your holiday together and your ego was pricked. Sadly predictable that you would take the first opportunity that you had to ban him once you thought that you had the power to do so. Despite doing so in the name of Moses and the other moderators, it appears that in your enthusiasm you overstepped your mark as Moses pointed out that the ban is only temporary.

Since you have always been keen to quote the rules, even long before you became a moderator, wouldn’t you say that what has actually happened is not a ban at all but a month long “suspension of posting privileges”, since Frequent’s account remains.

Rule 4.3 "In the case of loss of posting privileges, the advice will be sent by PM; it will not be delivered publicly."

I suppose that a PM would have taken away the pleasure of your big announcement and the opportunity to wave your cojones!

[Moses]

Temp. ban = suspension. It was first public announce and it wasn't made "in full". I think in future we will do more accurate announcements.

I want to remind: forum's rules forbid to discuss moderation cases, only principles of moderation and rules may be discussed.

One more reminder: it is decision of all 3 moderators, which has been supported by me. Please stop speculations.

Last: ban is ban - after it member's account don't have to be deleted, even after permanent ban.

[a447]

I didn't claim that it was a rule, I even stated that it was a guideline, a point that most people would realise was an acknowledgement of the "may" in the sentence. Unfortunately that went over your head.

"May" means "may", regardless of whether it's in a guideline or rule. Silly semantics.


Sadly predictable that you would take the first opportunity that you had to ban him once you thought that you had the power to do so.

A principle of moderation is that a moderator can not ban a member. The owner has that power. I am not the owner. So you are wrong.

Another principle is that the "enthusiasm" you refer to has to be unanimous ; i.e. four individuals must agree to any decision regarding banning. Therefore, any discontent a member has with regard to banning decisions may be directed at all involved. So you are wrong again.


Since you have always been keen to quote the rules, even long before you became a moderator, wouldn’t you say that what has actually happened is not a ban at all but a month long “suspension of posting privileges”

It's a ban. Or it's a suspension. Take your pick. I'll leave you to play more silly semantics. Both can have a time limit applied. But it is not a deletion of membership.
So you are wrong again.

When I was kicked off the board, I was told I was banned. Not suspended, banned.

Surfcrest wrote:

a447 will be banned until Moses takes over.

I don't recall you questioning the use of that word then.


I suppose that a PM would have taken away the pleasure of your big announcement...

A "big announcement" where the name is not announced may offer you pleasure. But you'd have to be easily pleased.

A further principle of moderation is that the offender is notified by PM. Moses, as owner, sent the PM.

[arsenal]

Brad the Impaler. While we're all grateful you've resumed posting to offer your most welcome advice the full facts are not in your possession. The post was such a clear (albeit brilliantly subtle) breach of the lese majeste laws that no decision needed to be made by us. The decision to be suspended was made by the poster when pressed the submit button.

[a447]

Brad has a history on this board of dismissing anything that doesn't suit his arguments as an "inconvenient truth".

I've outlined those inconvenient truths in my post above.

But the biggest truth he omitted is that the banned member broke Thai law, as well as a clearly stated rule of this forum.

Forget what actually occurred. Let's just attack the moderator instead.

Never let facts get in the way of the truth, eh?

[arsenal]

Now now A447. All members are entitled to express their opinions here. Even those whose contribution to the 'gay Thailand' bit of this board or even just Thailand in general is so minimul as to be worthless. Yes, even those ones.

Cue 'blah blah blah huffy hissy old biddy whinging from...........

[Brad the Impala]

Oh dear. This post from A447 is inappropriate for any moderator about posters who have not breached any rule, or probably even if they have. But if you want to light a touch paper, I happen to have some time available to respond to your provocation currently.


Brad has a history on this board of dismissing anything that doesn't suit his arguments as an "inconvenient truth".

Reference this history using your quoted expression.


I have outlined those inconvenient truths in my post above.

I had decided to ignore your post above, but since you bring it up again. Dismissing an opinion as silly semantics suggests to me that you know you are on shaky ground. If all three moderators and owners agreed on the ban, oops suspension, then you, and they, should have realised it was inappropriate for someone with a longstanding and personal grudge against the respective poster to make the announcement.


But the biggest truth he omitted is that the banned member broke Thai law, as well as a clearly stated rule of this forum.

I cannot omit a truth that I do not know! As the post was deleted and you would not even acknowledge who the poster was, it is only the judgment of the moderators and owner that it broke the law. I saw no such post, but equally I cannot say that there was not such a post. Someone with a history of asking for this poster to be banned because he made a joke about him should, imho, not have been involved in the decision, let alone announcing it!


Forget what actually occurred. Let us just attack the moderator instead.

Ah, attacking the moderator. If you think that my comments were an attack, you really do have an issue with your inability to deal with criticism or jokes about you. This is what an attack on the Moderator looks like:


you are indeed a despicable, dishonest and dishonourable person.


This man has no scruples.


Surfcrest has done irreparable damage to his reputation and credibility through a thoughtless act of vindictiveness in an attempt to extract some kind of revenge .





Never let facts get in the way of the truth, eh?

Indeed, and vanity is often the unseen spur of distortion.

[Brad the Impala]

Now now A447. All members are entitled to express their opinions here. Even those whose contribution to the 'gay Thailand' bit of this board or even just Thailand in general is so minimul as to be worthless. Yes, even those ones.

Cue 'blah blah blah huffy hissy old biddy whinging from...........

If the so "minimul" as to be worthless refers at least partially to me, which is likely as the previous post that you are responding to is about me, I'm sorry that you have that opinion. I don't live in Thailand, although I have visited for many years, and when I visit I usually post information from my trip. Is that "worthless"? A strange attitude from a moderator, especially given all the forums that there are here that are about other places/topics than Gay Thailand. If you wish me to leave "your" board, you should say so, and not try to be so subtle. Repressing your feelings can lead to bowel problems I hear.

Now all I need is Christian to weigh in with some negative comment and I will have the treble up.

Well I do have another complaint, directed to Moses(apart from what drug was he on when he delegated to the stooges) which is that it seems as if the moderators are able to have apostrophes and ellipses in their posts, see both moderator posts above, a privilege which is currently denied to us mere posters, as I now know from bitter experience. I had read about the problem elsewhere, but seeing them used in previous posts assumed that the issue had been addressed.

[a447]

You have missed the point again.

I didn't attack the moderator for a moderation decision. In fact, I went out of my way not to do so. It is in my OP at the time. It's still there for all to see.

Read those threads again. Comments were posted which made accusations against me. When I repeatedly asked for evidence of what I was supposed to have done, none was forthcoming. Therefore, I made the comments you have quoted here. I attacked him for telling lies.

(And in any case, the moderator at the time was surfcrest. So why are you, defending him? Just wondering....)


it is only the judgment of the moderators and owner that it broke the law.

You are wrong.

A member who criticises the family will have their posting privileges withdrawn. No judgement required. The judgement was made years ago when the rules were written.

In contrast, I was banned when I did not break any of the rules. However, the ban (note the use of the word "ban", as opposed to "suspend") was made apparently after he had received complaints.


I've been pushed to ban members....so I'm banning members

Strange that at the time you didn't question surfcrest as to whether or not the "push" had come from a certain poster "with a longstanding and personal grudge".

You were uncharacteristcally quiet at the time. No indignation expressed then.

See what I mean by "inconvenient truths"? You are very selective indeed.

Moses, as owner of the board, has told you what happened. Whether or not you believe him is up to you.

To quote someone you know very well:


You can continue this argument alone with yourself in cyberspace.

[arsenal]

Hi Brad.
1) Moderators can post as members whenever they choose to and that includes anything you think 'inappropriate for a moderator'. Don't like it? Tough shit, suck it up Big Boy. All three of us bring something to the party and have done for many years. Dec 31 when my tenure ends you can stick your hat in the ring and moderate to the standards you choose.
2) The member broke the law. Fact. Look at some recent cases. But by deleting it instantly and taking action against him the board did not. Read the post in question. BIG WARNINGS were posted by myself, A447, NIrish and the OP.
3) The leeway for freedom of speech on this board remains greater than perhaps any other public media online or in print available today. This means that if you choose to reply to this you can say pretty much anything you like and that includes anything directed towards The Stooges, as can any other member. But if you bite we'll bite you right back and not with the moderator tools which are not there as personal playthings but to protect members and the board from psychos.
4) Please read number 2 again.

[Moses]

Well I do have another complaint, directed to Moses(apart from what drug was he on when he delegated to the stooges) which is that it seems as if the moderators are able to have apostrophes and ellipses in their posts, see both moderator posts above, a privilege which is currently denied to us mere posters, as I now know from bitter experience. I had read about the problem elsewhere, but seeing them used in previous posts assumed that the issue had been addressed.

that's crazy conclusion... "problem with apostrophes" is linked to iPhone users and may be users of Aplle tablets who has last iOS... users of Android phones have no such problems as well as users of computers...

also reminder: board rules not allow to discuss cases of moderation on public... it is last warning before infraction for rule violation

[Mickp]

Whoever has been banned needs t be brought back immediately!!!!

[Surfcrest]

I attacked him for telling lies.

You were banned for falsely calling me a liar and now I see you are still slipping this in to conversations I'm not even a part of.

Brad the Impala has provided a wealth of information to the Board over the years I owned it and the many years prior to that. I've been here longer than all of you put together and Brad was here before me. Irrespective of who's posting what on this Board at any time, you need the experienced old geezers like me and Smiles to remember yesteryear, to take newbies by the hand and lead them into the gentle garden of SGT and to call bullshit when we see it.

Hopefully, you'll be able to solve these same problems I faced, now that they're directed to you instead of coming from you.

I think you're all doing a marvelous job and on a completely separate note.....a447, if you wrongly bring up the past again...I will bring all those threads back up and make you look like the asshole you are.

Surfcrest

[GWMinUS]

Scottish wrote.
" Heartening to see your now a legal expert, Len - as well as knowing every other fucking thing. How do you manage it I wonder."

Well with regard to the specific law in question, everyone is an expert because everyone knows it. Don't they?

On a personal note I hope that you, like Hilary Clinton can one day get over being denied the job you felt was yours by right. The board sympathises with your disappointment and believes that you can find some comfort in remaining a worthwhile, albeit junior, member.
Please feel free to drop in any time you're passing.

Come on Arsenal, I would think you as a Moderator would be the last member to start a pissing match with another member. Please express your thoughts to Scottish by PM.

[arsenal]

GWMUS. Suggestion noted. Thank you for your kind words of encouragement. However, if you have time to spare I suggest you offer condolences to Scottish who has hankered after the role of moderator for years only to be denied (AGAIN) at the last hurdle.

[bobsaigon2]

Getting a bit risky to read this thread. When I opened this page I was, very fortunately, wearing my anti-wasp/hornet outfit. No wonder the insurance companies refuse coverage to board owners/moderators.

[a447]

You were banned for falsely calling me a liar...

I called you a liar because you made allegations against me. When I asked you over and over again to provide evidence, you refused to do so.

So yes, you lied.

And what rule provides for suspension of posting rights for calling someone a liar?

Surely there would be a similar penalty for calling someone an "asshole" wouldn't there??


. a447, if you wrongly bring up the past again...I will bring all those threads back up and make you look like the asshole you are.

How can the past be brought up "wrongly" when they are your own words being quoted from the past?

Feel free to bring up anything you want to in order to show I'm "an asshole."

But I'll only answer of you mention all the assholes, including any who try to sabotage the board.

[scottish-guy]

Be reasonable a447 - there isn't enough time left to live for Surfy to mention all the arseholes on this board

:D

[a447]

1) Moderators can post as members whenever they choose to and that includes anything you think 'inappropriate for a moderator'.

3) ....you can say pretty much anything you like and that includes anything directed towards The Stooges, as can any other member. But if you bite we'll bite you right back and not with the moderator tools which are not there as personal playthings but to protect members and the board from psychos.

We have two roles - that of a member and that of a moderator. They are separate. If you can't see the difference, brad, that's your problem.

Anybody here will find themselves in the same boat if they become moderators.

In an ideal world a moderator would be someone completely divorced from the board; someone who knows nothing about us whatsoever and has no idea of the 'history" between members.. But as I wrote in another thread :


The situation we have faced recently is very unusual - three members all deciding to misbehave at the same time, necessitating moderation. Normally, most members manage to self-moderate and there had been very little call for moderation over the years.

So that being the case, is it worthwhile paying an outsider to do the job? Can such a person be found? Is Moses willing to pay?

If the answer to those questions is "yes" then let's go for it. That would make me very happy indeed!

We have to be realistic. We are using the resources we have - our members - to attempt the task. I'm sure all of us have "history" with others on the board. But surely the rules, which are posted here for all to see, prevent moderation from becoming an exercise in vindictiveness if they are followed to the letter by anyone who moderates. When the rule is open to interpretation, the board owner decides. That should prevent any bias being shown.

When sanctions are applied to a member, he must be able to ask for the reason. In other words, show me the rule on which the decision was based.

Unless we end up heading towards the Bitchboard of old, an outsider is not essential, IMHO.

[a447]

Be reasonable a447 - there isn't enough time left to live for Surfy to mention all the arseholes on this board

:D

Thank god!

For a minute there, I was beginning to think I was the only one.

[catawampuscat]

We have two roles - that of a member and that of a moderator. They are separate. If you can't see the difference, brad, that's your problem.

Anybody here will find themselves in the same boat if they become moderators.

In an ideal world a moderator would be someone completely divorced from the board; someone who knows nothing about us whatsoever and has no idea of the 'history" between members.. But as I wrote in another
...

Unless we end up heading towards the Bitchboard of old, an outsider is not essential, IMHO.

This forum was the Bitchboard for the weeks mickp/badboybilly was given free rein and allowed
to run amok. Actually it was worse than the bitch board, which was moderated albeit in a
bizarre fashion.

[a447]

The Bitchboard was moderated in the sense that anyone who didn't agree with them was immediately banned.

Here, we have a set of Guidelines and Rules. That makes it infinitely more difficult.

[arsenal]

We don't want The Bitchboard but neither do we want a copy of any of the other boards. Somewhere in between. This has only become necessary, as A447 has stated, because of 3 members.

[Surfcrest]

I called you a liar because you made allegations against me. When I asked you over and over again to provide evidence, you refused to do so.

So yes, you lied.



You tried to bully me into banning frequent which I see you are the one behind doing this again right now. I called you and Saigon Bob on it. This was all done publicly here on this Board, after which you tried to deny you did this. When I called you on it, you called me a liar and I banned you. I should have made that ban permanent.

Surfcrest

[Brad the Impala]

that's crazy conclusion... "problem with apostrophes" is linked to iPhone users and may be users of Aplle tablets who has last iOS... users of Android phones have no such problems as well as users of computers...

also reminder: board rules not allow to discuss cases of moderation on public... it is last warning before infraction for rule violation

It may be a crazy conclusion, which was a joke, hopefully, but I was using an iMac running Sierra,which is usually classed as a computer.

Final warning noted. My lips are sealed on Frequent's suspension, but not his suspenders 5695



Presumably one is still allowed to discuss the principles of moderation, and criticise the moderators, who both seem to be turning into Gaybutton. It will rather stifle the debate into the future of the board if the freedom to discuss those topics are removed from posters.

[Moses]

Presumably one is still allowed to discuss the principles of moderation, and criticise the moderators, who both seem to be turning into Gaybutton. It will rather stifle the debate into the future of the board if the freedom to discuss those topics are removed from posters.


sure: policy and principles are opened for discussion, but not cases

"why you banned him?", "why you gave me infraction?", "that's not fair penalty" - is out of discussion on the public pages

""should moderators penalize dirty words?", "should moderators to be more tolerated to racism?" and so on - are welcome...

[a447]

You tried to bully me into banning frequent which I see you are the one behind doing this again right now. I called you and Saigon Bob on it. This was all done publicly here on this Board, after which you tried to deny you did this. When I called you on it, you called me a liar and I banned you. I should have made that ban permanent.

Surfcrest

Where does it say in the rules that a member can be banned for calling someone a liar?

Why haven't other members who have made the very same accusation also been banned?

You have posted that I wanted frequent to be banned earlier in the year. I also called for a post to be deleted, as it violated a rule (one that you yourself had introduced!)

You have omitted to mention why that call was made. But I've just told you. Rules were violated. I asked you to enforce the rules or, if you are not willing to do so, remove or amend those you don't like.

But like your "best friend" Brad, you have omitted aN inconvenient truth by telling only half of the story.

And your hypocrisy here is breathtaking.

On the one hand, you accuse me of wanting to ban a member because I didn't like him. Yet here you are, telling us yet again that you wished you had banned me, based on the fact that you don't like me! That point was reinforced by your threat of violence against me - also against the rules, btw. You can't point to any rule which would lead to my being banned - you are accusing me of doing the exact same thing you have done!

And you did actually ban me, not just call for my banning. But you still haven't pointed to the rule. After I was banned I tried to log on but got a message which stated that I was banned for a month. The box in which the reason was, under the rules, to be typed was left empty.

And you also called for whitemouse to be banned. He asked you what rule he had violated but you didn't reply.

And you also bsnned firecat on the basis that you didn't like him, didn't you? It's still all here on the forum in black snd white.

WTF??

And on a general note m what do you think should happen to a member, any member, who violates the board rule relating to lese majeste?

[bobsaigon2]

The final weeks of the former owner’s tenure exhibited a degree of “moral meltdown”. He stated firmly that there would be no banning. But a447 was then banned without reference to any posting guideline offense, apparently just because he annoyed the owner. Frequent disappeared and then reappeared on the Forum, details very hazy about that. Sglad was banned after it was clear that he was a hydra, and then he was invited back to the Forum, perhaps just to annoy those who merited the owner’s disfavor. At one point I found the happenings sufficient to classify the owner as hypocritical. I was informed that if I voluntarily withdrew from the forum a second time, I would not be allowed back. So there are a lot of elements yet to be explained, if anyone is interested. I certainly am not. It's all a bit of unpleasant history which does not benefit from rehashing.

[a447]

You are spot on, Bob.

Thanks for telling it the way it was.

But some will never be convinced.