Author Topic: Grahame.  (Read 7819 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline Jane

  • Hero Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 32561
Re: Grahame.
« Reply #30 on: June 09, 2014, 08:53:PM »
Given that there have been a few criticisms of late, perhaps we need to clarify the rules and lay them out a little more clearly. I agree that there should always be a warning if a ban is issued to ascertain the intention of the post/member in question? Unless of course it's quite clear what the intention is.


Wonderful idea, Caroline. Clarification is always good. Hopefully it will stop any further misunderstandings.

guest154

  • Guest
Re: Grahame.
« Reply #31 on: June 09, 2014, 08:54:PM »
Given that there have been a few criticisms of late, perhaps we need to clarify the rules and lay them out a little more clearly. I agree that there should always be a warning if a ban is issued to ascertain the intention of the post/member in question? Unless of course it's quite clear what the intention is.

A warning would be good - knew it wasn't you who banned me.  :) Very clear who it was, no matter how it's worded/hidden.

Offline Jane

  • Hero Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 32561
Re: Grahame.
« Reply #32 on: June 09, 2014, 08:59:PM »
A warning would be good - knew it wasn't you who banned me.  :) Very clear who it was, no matter how it's worded/hidden.


Mat, WHATEVER!!! All you had to do was say you broke the rules, but NO, you'd sooner blame me for implementing them. I wonder what it says about YOUR character.

Offline susan

  • Hero Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 16196
Re: Grahame.
« Reply #33 on: June 09, 2014, 09:01:PM »
Hello Caroline maybe it should be like in football one yellow card then a red then bye bye see ya sometime ;D ;D ;D

guest154

  • Guest
Re: Grahame.
« Reply #34 on: June 09, 2014, 09:06:PM »
Hello Caroline maybe it should be like in football one yellow card then a red then bye bye see ya sometime ;D ;D ;D

And some clarity. Mentioning you've reported a post and the mods didn't reply.... Not sure that's bad. But as Mod April said - WHATEVER.

 :)

Offline Patti

  • Global Moderator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 13193
Re: Grahame.
« Reply #35 on: June 09, 2014, 09:09:PM »
Given that there have been a few criticisms of late, perhaps we need to clarify the rules and lay them out a little more clearly. I agree that there should always be a warning if a ban is issued to ascertain the intention of the post/member in question? Unless of course it's quite clear what the intention is.

Well said Caroline!

It might also be a good idea if (whoever) was encouraged in a behind the scenes apology. Its better to have a boxing match and fought tooth and nail than to have been disqualified before entering the ring....Hope you got that lol  ;D ;D ;D ;D
« Last Edit: June 09, 2014, 09:13:PM by Patti »

Offline Patti

  • Global Moderator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 13193
Re: Grahame.
« Reply #36 on: June 09, 2014, 09:12:PM »
And some clarity. Mentioning you've reported a post and the mods didn't reply.... Not sure that's bad. But as Mod April said - WHATEVER.

 :)

Do be quiet!  :P ;D ;D ;D ;D

Offline Caroline

  • Hero Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 27075
Re: Grahame.
« Reply #37 on: June 09, 2014, 09:13:PM »
And some clarity. Mentioning you've reported a post and the mods didn't reply.... Not sure that's bad. But as Mod April said - WHATEVER.

 :)

If you report a post, it's not flagged up and we wouldn't see it unless we checked the 'reported posts' log several time a day. Not many posts do get reported so admittedly, it doesn't get checked as much as it should. We 'should' check it twice a day as a matter of course.

Few people have the imagination for reality

mertol22

  • Guest
Re: Grahame.
« Reply #38 on: July 11, 2014, 11:50:PM »
Can I just say that the moderators have a difficult job at times and its impossible to please everyone.

However, you have to remain very impartial at all times.  If this is not done then this could cause  a  problem on the forum, or in-house so to speak.

In my opinion banning people should be the last resort. The forum needs to placed first at all times and all its members should be considered no matter what.

It would be better if some sort of procedure was put into practice before any ban is issued.  One should never ban anyone because they dislike something that a member has said.

It could be a simple process for example. 3 warnings, a 24 hour ban or 48 hour ban and if the problem gets worse then a longer ban or a lifetime ban. The forum should set its rules in place in my opinion.

Mat you have had more bans than anyone else on the forum.  I think the problem lays with the fact you go across on the red forum to spin your yarn or criticize something that has happened on this forum.  Mat, this has to stop and, you know deep down that this can cause members on this forum to lose faith in you and make complaints.  However, in all fairness you have a right to post on both forums.  To be honest I don't think what you said warranted a ban.

If Grahame would be honest he will tell you that he should have had a ban for what he said... :-\
You can't have one rule for one and not the other, its just not cricket.

Its sad but this kind of thing happens on most forums. One gets banned, the banned person kicks off and before you know it world 3 breaks out.

I shall be posting less and less, not because I don't want to debate because I do, but I am tired of going round and round in circles; plus I have other things to do.  :-[
Likewise  Patti im much the same ive cut down internet a bit now  will be in Essex   this Saturday  Romford collecting a bicycle  but with the 7th August  coming soon I  sense  new debate  on the case  each passing year does not help it.