Jeremy Bamber Forum
DISCLAIMER AND FORUM RULES => Disclaimer and forum rules and guidelines => Topic started by: ngb1066 on December 01, 2011, 03:52:PM
-
The owner of this forum and the Admin team want all members to enjoy their use of the forum. In order to facilitate this we ask that the following rules are observed by all members:
After joining the forum and before posting please introduce yourself in the Foyer, giving brief details about yourself and about your interest in the case.
Please do not make personal attacks against other forum members, either on this forum or elsewhere on the internet. Challenge the arguments of others by presenting your opinions, but do so respectfully and thoughtfully. Please do not make allegations of a defamatory nature against forum members or third parties.
Please avoid language which is likely to offend other forum members, in particular avoiding language of an obscene or profane nature, or containing any racist, sexist or homophobic element.
Please ensure that references to the victims in any case discussed on the forum are made in a respectful manner. Please remember that victims may include those living as well as those deceased.
Please refrain from posting spam in the forum or via the Personal Messaging system.
Please do not make posts solely to increase your post count.
Please do not register multiple profiles. If you do so all of your profiles are liable to be deleted.
Please note that members are entitled to conceal their identity. Save in exceptional circumstances (such as attacks by internet trolls) attempts should not be made to reveal the identity of members.
Please note that the Personal Messaging facility is for members to exchange private messages and should not be abused. In particular the facilty should not be used to broadcast messages to a group of members for the purpose of causing dissent or upset. Posting of the contents of Personal Messages on the forum is strongly discouraged.
Where a forum member objects to a particular post or series of posts made by another member (whether on this forum or elsewhere on the internet) or to the content of a Private Message, complaint should be made either by using the forum reporting facility or by sending a Personal Message to an Administrator or Moderator.
Please note that breaches of forum rules may result in action against the forum member concerned. Minor breaches will normally be dealt with by way of a Personal Message to the member. Offending posts are liable to be deleted. More serious breaches or repeated minor breaches may be dealt with by a temporary or permanent ban of the member, or deletion of the member's profile.
-
The following was posted by Rochford on the original disclaimer thread:
Can we agree to start from this minimum baseline:
No poster is to allege of another poster that they are personally a liar. This does still allow for questioning of a posters particular standpoint / experience / knowledge in any given area.
No poster is to personally insult another poster. This still allows for posters to be critical of each others views and stand points.
Where searching questions are asked by a poster from one side of the spectrum, to a poster from another side, those questions should be worded in as polite a manner as is possible, so as to particularly avoid 'goading'.
Sarcasm should be overlooked, as long as it doesn't fall in to any of the above categories. We can't police everything.
Multiple user-names are not permitted. Please note we have one poster who has had a string of Christian names as user-names. Bit of a coincidence?
This still leaves the problem of when two posters are having a spat. Now this can become highly entertaining for other posters to view. We don't want a sterile forum where there is no entertainment do we? This kind of disagreement does sometimes further the debate because it often happens around a specific contentious issue. I think when this happens we should look out for any of the above happening and also look out for repetitive, disruptive behaviour.
Rochford's suggested guidelines as set out above seem sensible and should be regarded as forum policy.
-
The admin/mod team are concerned that some members who are also members of the "red forum" are posting there attacks on our members and derogatory comments about this forum. We have all agreed that although we will continue to have no objection to members joining and posting on whatever forum they wish, we do not consider that those who make such attacks and comments should continue to enjoy the benefits of membership here. The forum rules have therefore been amended to reflect this change. The changes are highlighted in blue.
We hope that all members will agree with this rule change and will bear this in mind in posting elsewhere. One member has already been banned for persistent and serious abuse and PMs are being sent to other members who have made posts elsewhere which are in breach of this rule.
-
I very much support this NGB. Might I add that, it is not acceptable in any shape or form to gossip about our members here or anywhere else on the internet or use derogatory remarks toward members who post on this forum. Thank you.
-
Seems fair.
-
Hi Lugg I share your sentiments on that one.
-
I wouldn't know who these people are because I never go over there. Neither will I judge anyone here for being a member there. A mistake I made before and hope to correct from now on. But I do agree with the changes to the forum rules if this kind of thing is taking place over there.
-
Hi Lugg I share your sentiments on that one.
Sorry Susan It posted before I finished the sentence for some reason? ;D
-
Hi Lugg I read your post again and thought I had taken a funny turn Ha Ha what you said does make good sense ;D
-
:) :) :) agreed!!! the red forum has the same rules, but they more then happy to attack members from here on their forum it seems their mods are the ones doing it!!
-
I can see a time where it's going to be a straight choice between being a member of one or the other, it doesn't work being on both.
-
I can see a time where it's going to be a straight choice between being a member of one or the other, it doesn't work being on both.
I made that choice a long time ago and for the life of me cannot see the benefits of belonging to 2 forums that discuss the same things? The other forum was created after this one and originally was set up purely for the reason of abusing members of this forum.
-
Unfortunately Lugg, you are correct, they don't even deny it. I don't really understand what they think it's going to achieve. At the moment they're to busy defending the Mccanns to bother about much else.
-
I made that choice a long time ago and for the life of me cannot see the benefits of belonging to 2 forums that discuss the same things? The other forum was created after this one and originally was set up purely for the reason of abusing members of this forum.
Correct!!! I only spy on the red forum to see whats being said about members here!!! it seems they stopped talking about me over a year ago now!! lets hope they read this!
-
what if john starts fake accounts with the same names as users on here he has done it before.
-
I didn't want to start a new topic, for what is most probably a dumb question!
Is it not possible to reply to comments in the 'Archive and Library' section?
-
I didn't want to start a new topic, for what is most probably a dumb question!
Is it not possible to reply to comments in the 'Archive and Library' section?
This is probably a dumber answer Neil ........... No idea!! ;D ;D
-
This is probably a dumber answer Neil ........... No idea!! ;D ;D
;D Thanks for clearing that up, Maggie.
-
I didn't want to start a new topic, for what is most probably a dumb question!
Is it not possible to reply to comments in the 'Archive and Library' section?
Why not Neil? Others do :)
In answer to your question. I don't know.
-
;D Thanks for clearing that up, Maggie.
Sorry for being hopeless about these things. Should guess Caroline's your woman for this. ;D ;D ;)
-
I didn't want to start a new topic, for what is most probably a dumb question!
Is it not possible to reply to comments in the 'Archive and Library' section?
Yes Neil of course, people may not always see the comment though but if other people have commented, I don't see why not.
-
Two members here have breached the forum rule set out aqt the top of this thread by posting attacks on the "red" forum on a member here. In the case of one member this was not the first time such an attack had been made. That member has been given a temporary ban. If there is any further attack by that member on members of this forum the ban will be made permanent.
-
Please note that is totally unacceptable for any member to post threats on the forum. Several posts and threads have been removed for this reason. The member responsible for the posts has been banned and has been warned that a permanent ban will follow if this behaviour is repeated.
-
Please note that is totally unacceptable for any member to post threats on the forum. Several posts and threads have been removed for this reason. The member responsible for the posts has been banned and has been warned that a permanent ban will follow if this behaviour is repeated.
I guess the divine intervention expired? :))
-
I guess the divine intervention expired? :))
It must have done.
-
Please note that is totally unacceptable for any member to post threats on the forum. Several posts and threads have been removed for this reason. The member responsible for the posts has been banned and has been warned that a permanent ban will follow if this behaviour is repeated.
I hope the member concerned is OK - but I don't think the forum had any choice other than to take this kind of thing very seriously. Let's hope it doesn't happen again.
-
I hope the member concerned is OK - but I don't think the forum had any choice other than to take this kind of thing very seriously. Let's hope it doesn't happen again.
The member in question is a loose cannon!
-
No poster is to allege of another poster that they are personally a liar. This does still allow for questioning of a posters particular standpoint / experience / knowledge in any given area.
Following the exchanges yesterday on the topic "A Tentative Sheila-As-Killer Scenario"
Can we please have a revision of this policy to remove the lack of ambiguity?
Accusation or allegation of a poster as a liar is one thing. Exposing and making it known that a poster is indeed a lair is another. The latter does not strictly break the rule above. Yet it is considered as doing such.
I have in the past pointed out people as lying and deliberately misleading. Nevertheless my posts in doing so were removed.
Lying and trolling is problem for any internet forum. Justified and legitimate exposé of such behaviour should be allowed. If this forum allows people to lie and troll then it should be permitted for posters to freely point out and condemn such behaviour. You cannot properly debate with someone who is lying if you are not allowed to point out they are indeed lying. The current standpoint taken by the moderators is IMO counter productive.
-
Following the exchanges yesterday on the topic "A Tentative Sheila-As-Killer Scenario"
Can we please have a revision of this policy to remove the lack of ambiguity?
Accusation or allegation of a poster as a liar is one thing. Exposing and making it known that a poster is indeed a lair is another. The latter does not strictly break the rule above. Yet it is considered as doing such.
I have in the past pointed out people as lying and deliberately misleading. Nevertheless my posts in doing so were removed.
Lying and trolling is problem for any internet forum. Justified and legitimate exposé of such behaviour should be allowed. If this forum allows people to lie and troll then it should be permitted for posters to freely point out and condemn such behaviour. You cannot properly debate with someone who is lying if you are not allowed to point out they are indeed lying. The current standpoint taken by the moderators is IMO counter productive.
I must agree, and it is also additionally that the attitude of the poster in question is, I find, quite 'off' most of the time. He is rude and sarcastic as a matter of habit, and thus his posts are inflammatory. It's clear that his intention is to flame and divert discussions.
If moderators won't deal appropriately with such posters, then they should not be surprised if the behaviours are highlighted and challenged on the open forum.
It is entirely within the scope of neutral handling to label a poster as a liar if that is what they are and to deal with them as such.
In a similar way, if I - as a neutral on the case under discussion - found incontrovertible proof of Jeremy Bamber's guilt, I'd quite happily drag him out of his cell and hang him in Wakefield Prison yard from the mulberry tree. The converse is equally the case: if evidence came to light that exonerated him, it would be neutral to declare him innocent.
Neutrality never fears the plain facts in front of us. A liar is a liar is a liar.
-
Following the exchanges yesterday on the topic "A Tentative Sheila-As-Killer Scenario"
Can we please have a revision of this policy to remove the lack of ambiguity?
Accusation or allegation of a poster as a liar is one thing. Exposing and making it known that a poster is indeed a lair is another. The latter does not strictly break the rule above. Yet it is considered as doing such.
I have in the past pointed out people as lying and deliberately misleading. Nevertheless my posts in doing so were removed.
Lying and trolling is problem for any internet forum. Justified and legitimate exposé of such behaviour should be allowed. If this forum allows people to lie and troll then it should be permitted for posters to freely point out and condemn such behaviour. You cannot properly debate with someone who is lying if you are not allowed to point out they are indeed lying. The current standpoint taken by the moderators is IMO counter productive.
Thank you David. I sent a PM to both Maggie & NGB yesterday. It might be better if they respond to it on the forum, rather than to me personally. So everyone knows the rules.
My view is a moderator/s should inststantly interject and take assertive action on a thread if a poster calls someone a liar or troll. This has always correctly been the case.
NGB was online and I asked him to interject straight after the first post saying I was lying, in my replies 18 & 20. I got no response from NGB resulting in the abuse escalating over the next 4 hours.
Another thread was created titled 'Adam is a liar and a troll'. This thread was taken down but no ban implemented. Thank you NGB.
Maggie posted on the thread in reply 31 and I assummed that the abuse would stop. However I was continued to be called a 'liar' and 'troll' in more posts as the poster disagreed with Maggies post. I asked for assistance from Maggie on the thread in three posts, but got no response and the thread was locked.
I very rarely post on the other posters threads, 2 out of the last 15 at the last count. However always respond to 'Sheila scenarios' and did so here.
I used the 'Court of Appeal' as a source to show Nevill was shot upstairs 4 times. Two posts later I was told my posts are 'a form of lying' & called a liar several more times over the next 4 hours. I disagree but even if the poster believes this, posting such is extreme goading and serves no purpose.
Hopefully this abuse won't continue to happen on the rare occasions I post on his threads.
I hope everything will be resolved this morning.
-
Thank you David. I sent a PM to both Maggie & NGB yesterday. It might be better if they respond to it on the forum, rather than to me personally. So everyone knows the rules.
My view is a moderator/s should inststantly interject and take assertive action on a thread if a poster calls someone a liar or troll. This has always correctly been the case.
NGB was online and I asked him to interject straight after the first post saying I was lying, in my replies 18 & 20. I got no response from NGB resulting in the abuse escalating over the next 4 hours.
Another thread was created titled 'Adam is a liar and a troll'. This thread was taken down but no ban implemented. Thank you NGB.
Maggie posted on the thread in reply 31 and I assummed that the abuse would stop. However I was continued to be called a 'liar' and 'troll' in more posts as the poster disagreed with Maggies post. I asked for assistance from Maggie on the thread in three posts, but got no response and the thread was locked.
I very rarely post on the other posters threads, 2 out of the last 15 at the last count. However always respond to 'Sheila scenarios' and did so here.
I used the 'Court of Appeal' as a source to show Nevill was shot upstairs 4 times. Two posts later I was told my posts are 'a form of lying' & called a liar several more times over the next 4 hours. I disagree but even if the poster believes this, posting such is extreme goading and serves no purpose. Hopefully this won't continue to happen on the rare occasions I post on his threads.
I hope everything will be resolved this morning.
I locked the post because I had personal reasons why I had to leave the forum one of which was that it was midnight and I had been travelling all day.
In acknowledgement of David's post, I expect Ngb will answer this when he is next on the forum. Thanks
-
Thank you David. I sent a PM to both Maggie & NGB yesterday. It might be better if they respond to it on the forum, rather than to me personally. So everyone knows the rules.
My view is a moderator/s should inststantly interject and take assertive action on a thread if a poster calls someone a liar or troll. This has always correctly been the case.
NGB was online and I asked him to interject straight after the first post saying I was lying, in my replies 18 & 20. I got no response from NGB resulting in the abuse escalating over the next 4 hours.
Another thread was created titled 'Adam is a liar and a troll'. This thread was taken down but no ban implemented. Thank you NGB.
Maggie posted on the thread in reply 31 and I assummed that the abuse would stop. However I was continued to be called a 'liar' and 'troll' in more posts as the poster disagreed with Maggies post. I asked for assistance from Maggie on the thread in three posts, but got no response and the thread was locked.
I very rarely post on the other posters threads, 2 out of the last 15 at the last count. However always respond to 'Sheila scenarios' and did so here.
I used the 'Court of Appeal' as a source to show Nevill was shot upstairs 4 times. Two posts later I was told my posts are 'a form of lying' & called a liar several more times over the next 4 hours. I disagree but even if the poster believes this, posting such is extreme goading and serves no purpose.
Hopefully this abuse won't continue to happen on the rare occasions I post on his threads.
I hope everything will be resolved this morning.
Imo there is a difference between suggesting someone is not being completely open or is manipulating information to suit their own argument and opinions and abusive name .ca'll ling whatever words are used to do that. The forum would soon fall into total chaos is all posters verbally abused those they disagreed with. Imo 'Liar' is an abusive term.
-
Imo there is a difference between suggesting someone is not being completely open or is manipulating information to suit their own argument and opinions and abusive name .ca'll ling whatever words are used to do that. The forum would soon fall into total chaos is all posters verbally abused those they disagreed with. Imo 'Liar' is an abusive term.
I agree. It is fine to demonstrate that a poster has been illogical or misleading, or is totally wrong about an aspect of evidence or law, but that can be done without accusing the poster of being a liar.
-
Please refrain from posting spam in the forum or via the Personal Messaging system.
Please do not make posts solely to increase your post count.
Can I please ask that the above Forum Rules are enforced against the member here who is always flouting them and refuses to listen to protests from other members?
He claims that it is just the way he posts, but he was on this Forum for many years without the need to post like this. He is clearly doing it to annoy everybody and dilute and disrupt the Forum while upping his post count.
Thank you.
-
Can I please ask that the above Forum Rules are enforced against the member here who is always flouting them and refuses to listen to protests from other members?
He claims that it is just the way he posts, but he was on this Forum for many years without the need to post like this. He is clearly doing it to annoy everybody and dilute and disrupt the Forum while upping his post count.
Thank you.
I agree that the situation is getting worse. As I have explained I generally adopt a light tough to moderating the forum, but recent repetitive posts by one member are increasingly annoying other members. I am increasingly forming the view that this type of posting is done mainly to goad and not in order to further debate. I ask that member to modify his forum behaviour because although I generally do not intervene, very soon I will have no choice and that will involve deletion of numerous posts and, if posting continues in the same way, other action against the member. I really hope that the member concerned takes note of this.
-
Supporters always deflecting from their pathetically weak arguments by moaning about the posting styles of those who believe Bamber guilty as charged ::)
That may be the case in some instances, which is why I do not generally intervene when complaints are made about a member's style of posting. However where it is clear that the style of posting is deliberately intended to goad it is a different matter. I am sure you understand the point I am making.
-
That may be the case in some instances, which is why I do not generally intervene when complaints are made about a member's style of posting.
Ok
However where it is clear that the style of posting is deliberately intended to goad it is a different matter. I am sure you understand the point I am making.
But is it clear? Might there be another explanation? Poster said he is unable to quote paras as I am doing now. Should poster be given the benefit of the doubt and/or assistance to quote paras? What a dilema? :)
-
Maybe we should try and de-escalate all this recent friction? I know I've been a bit rattled myself of late. But I'm not sure we should be labelling members as alcoholics. What if everyone just backs up a little bit?
-
That's a lovely suggestion, Roch.
-
Maybe we should try and de-escalate all this recent friction? I know I've been a bit rattled myself of late. But I'm not sure we should be labelling members as alcoholics. What if everyone just backs up a little bit?
I agree.
-
I have removed a number of posts from this thread. It is difficult to know where to draw the line, but where a post adds nothing to the debate and attacks another member it is not appropriate for the forum. I ask for cooperation from members on this.
-
Again, personal attack from Steve and use of foul language.
No, he's a xxxx[/i].
I agree and I have removed the post and edited the quote in your post
-
Again, personal attack from Jane:
You're adept at putting your own interpretation on what others say, as is Jackie, although I hesitate to place you in the same category. Where have I ever dictated what you 'should' say? I haven't. It's your perception. There's no should/shouldn't about it. Posters are perfectly free to say what they want -and Yes, that includes you- but all have to accept that there are consequences. No one here shouts more loudly, than you, regarding perceived insults, and no one dishes them out more freely, insisting they have the right. What about the 'rights' of others to respond to, what they perceive as insults from you?
-
Again, personal attack from Jane:
Although this post contains criticism of you I do not think it falls outside forum rules.
-
Although this post contains criticism of you I do not think it falls outside forum rules.
She says no-one dishes out insults more freely than me. Who am I insulting?
I'm not arguing with you about it, but it's clearly an attack on me, and it's not necessary.
-
Although this post contains criticism of you I do not think it falls outside forum rules.
It wasn't meant as a criticism, Neil. More as an observation of how I perceive his posts.
-
It wasn't meant as a criticism, Neil. More as an observation of how I perceive his posts.
It was clearly a criticism in which you attack me and claim I am insulting people.
Who am I insulting?
-
It was clearly a criticism in which you attack me and claim I am insulting people.
Who am I insulting?
Are you really so lacking in awareness that you don't recognize when you're being insulting? Are you denying that you insult people?
-
Are you really so lacking in awareness that you don't recognize when you're being insulting? Are you denying that you insult people?
I'll repeat the question:
Who am I insulting?
-
I'll repeat the question:
Who am I insulting?
Look at some of your posts which fit the criteria.................of course, putting aside that you may be super sensitive, it's perfectly possible that you're not as sensitive as you'd like us to believe, and you're on a wind up, sitting there having a laugh. I'm just throwing suggestions out there.
-
Look at some of your posts which fit the criteria.................of course, putting aside that you may be super sensitive, it's perfectly possible that you're not as sensitive as you'd like us to believe, and you're on a wind up, sitting there having a laugh. I'm just throwing suggestions out there.
Again, you've not answered the question. That's because I am not insulting anybody, or even attacking anybody.
The whole situation is ridiculous and I am sick of your nonsense.
-
Look at some of your posts which fit the criteria.................of course, putting aside that you may be super sensitive, it's perfectly possible that you're not as sensitive as you'd like us to believe, and you're on a wind up, sitting there having a laugh. I'm just throwing suggestions out there.
I think he just wants the forum to operate on a debating level, rather than on a personal dig level. We could all try this as an experiment?
-
I think he just wants the forum to operate on a debating level, rather than on a personal dig level. We could all try this as an experiment?
That's exactly it.
-
Again, you've not answered the question. That's because I am not insulting anybody, or even attacking anybody.
The whole situation is ridiculous and I am sick of your nonsense.
In your mind you may not be.
-
I think he just wants the forum to operate on a debating level, rather than on a personal dig level. We could all try this as an experiment?
Indeed we could..............however, having once suggested such to Jackie, I quickly learned that she wasn't willing to cooperate. Also, I understand that David throws out more insults than QC and others have joined him in attacking one poster in particular, BUT, I'm perfectly willing to follow QC's lead if he wants to try it.
-
Indeed we could..............however, having once suggested such to Jackie, I quickly learned that she wasn't willing to cooperate. Also, I understand that David throws out more insults than QC and others have joined him in attacking one poster in particular, BUT, I'm perfectly willing to follow QC's lead if he wants to try it.
Who am I insulting? Third time of asking.
-
Who am I insulting? Third time of asking.
In the immediacy, you're not, but you don't seem to believe you've ever insulted anybody. It seems to be a question of them deserving your reprimand.
-
In the immediacy, you're not, but you don't seem to believe you've ever insulted anybody. It seems to be a question of them deserving your reprimand.
I'm not insulting anybody. Thank you for - finally- being honest. You are just taking this Forum down another nonsensical avenue for your own amusement. I do hope you are having a good laugh about it, but beyond that, what you are achieving is unclear.
-
I'm not insulting anybody. Thank you for - finally- being honest. You are just taking this Forum down another nonsensical avenue for your own amusement. I do hope you are having a good laugh about it, but beyond that, what you are achieving is unclear.
[/quote
How strange! I apply exactly that, to you................and I believe it was I who first suggested that you might be "'avin' a larf"
-
That's exactly it.
Then you should put Adam on ignore, rather than respond to him in a sarcastic manner. IMO, of course.
-
The Red forum has also clocked who Cambridgecutie is now.
https://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?topic=8088.1950 (https://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?topic=8088.1950)
-
The Red forum has clocked who Cambridgecutie is now. Also.
https://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?topic=8088.1950 (https://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?topic=8088.1950)
Bit slow to catch on.
-
Bit slow to catch on.
They might not visit here often maybe?
-
Then you should put Adam on ignore, rather than respond to him in a sarcastic manner. IMO, of course.
I don't put anyone on ignore.
My responses to Adam are mainly just banter, not sarcasm. Adam can't expect anything else, the way he posts.
-
David1819/Roch
Have you guys not got anything better to do with your time than gossip and speculate about non-entities on obscure internet forums?
-
David1819/Roch
Have you guys not got anything better to do with your time than gossip and speculate about non-entities on obscure internet forums?
You have already admitted who you are, both indirectly on this forum and directly via PMs and email.
There is no speculation. You have no plausible deniability over your identity.
-
You have already admitted who you are, both indirectly on this forum and directly via PMs and email.
There is no speculation. You have no plausible deniability over your identity.
I've really no idea what you're talking about. Most 31 year olds guys I know have far more interesting things going on in their lives than bothering about some non-entity on an obscure internet forum.