Member banned

[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

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 681-10024-0022927_BLACKWHITEMILK_M.jpg



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.