Member banned

[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.