Paul Harrison aka Mason Doyle

[No-Bits]

As far I can see - and some of it was hard to follow - Jackie stopped short of making that accusation directly against Caroline.   That is a good thing, because it would be a preposterous accusation to make and one which would have met with general ridicule I am sure.  I do not think Jackie has got off scot free.  She took quite a battering here yesterday.  I took the view that disciplinary action was not necessary on this occasion.  I have to confess that this was in part influenced by the fact that Paul Harrison twice demanded (not suggested or requested) that Jackie should be banned permanently.  Obviously I will not bow to such pressure so I made the decision with which clearly you disagree, but such is the lot of an admin/mod here. 

I think there is a touch of hyperbole in your post.  Although some members will undoubtedly disagree with me, I very much doubt if the majority of forum members are "bewildered" at my decision.

I do not disagree or agree with you bowing to MD/PH's demands, I obviously haven't seen them so couldn't possibly comment.

I am not asking you to ban or discipline Jackie for her orchestration, that is of course up to you.

You can disagree with me if you like, that's fine, but it is quite apparent that the general feeling on the forum amongst members from both camps is that Jackie 'appears' to be treated with a light touch by the admins/mods.

I guess most people don't really care about MD/PH's demands and abuse, because they haven't seen it. Yourself on the other hand are no doubt much more irritated as you were the subject and recipient of the demands and abuse.
Most people are more concerned with Jackie's instigation and the lack of punishment or even criticism by the admins/mods.

[lookout]

 I just feel sorry for ngb caught in the crossfire.

[No-Bits]

I just feel sorry for ngb caught in the crossfire.

Yes he is undoubtedly in a situation where he can't please everybody.

[Jane]

It seems to me that this whole episode has shown  Mason Doyle to be quite naive.

What did he expect when he joined this forum?

I noted that Caroline mentioned yesterday, that she and Mason Doyle were well familiar with each other.  Coupled with a remark that MD made yesterday about Jeremy being an alleged MoJ, it made me wonder whether Mason Doyle had helped, in some way, to change Caroline's mind about Jeremy's guilt.

Of course, I may well have put two and two together and come up with five!

I suppose it hasn't occurred to you that it MIGHT be entirely the OTHER way round and Caroline's strong argument persuaded MD of Jeremy's guilt. Not that I believe THAT to be true, EITHER but it IS another way of making two and two make five.

[Alias]

I just feel sorry for ngb caught in the crossfire.

I agree. Not an enviable position at all. So much uproar at the moment! 

[ngb1066]

I do not disagree or agree with you bowing to MD/PH's demands, I obviously haven't seen them so couldn't possibly comment.

I am not asking asking you to ban or discipline Jackie for her orchestration, that is of course up to you.

You can disagree with me if you like, that's fine, but it is quite apparent that the general feeling on the forum amongst members from both camps is that Jackie 'appears' to be treated with a light touch by the admins/mods.

I guess most people don't really care about MD/PH's demands and abuse, because they haven't seen it. Yourself on the other hand are no doubt much more irritated as you were the subject and recipient of the demands and abuse.
Most people are more concerned with Jackie's instigation and the lack of punishment or even criticism by the admins/mods.

I think that's a bit unfair Harters.  Jackie was only recently allowed back on the forum after a ban of around two years.  She asked to return and the mod team agreed.  Since then she has been banned once - by me - for failing to heed warnings about attacking mods.  Also a number of individual posts have been dealt with.  Our aim is to treat all members in a consistent manner.  Obviously sometimes we fail, but I can say that the issue of Jackie has not been contentious within the mod team since she returned.  We have all been in agreement.  It may be that our two recently resigned mods now take a different view, although there are I suspect other factors underlying that, but the fact remains that when they were mods we adopted the same approach towards Jackie.

I have to say I do not think it is entirely appropriate to be discussing a forum member in this way.  I do not wish to stifle debate so I have answered your points but I hope we are able to draw a line under this now. 

 

[Neil]

I suppose it hasn't occurred to you that it MIGHT be entirely the OTHER way round and Caroline's strong argument persuaded MD of Jeremy's guilt. Not that I believe THAT to be true, EITHER but it IS another way of making two and two make five.

WHY would YOU suppose THAT?

[nugnug]

hang on have missed somthing when did md say he thought jeremy was guilty.

[Jane]

I think that's a bit unfair Harters.  Jackie was only recently allowed back on the forum after a ban of around two years.  She asked to return and the mod team agreed.  Since then she has been banned once - by me - for failing to heed warnings about attacking mods.  Also a number of individual posts have been dealt with.  Our aim is to treat all members in a consistent manner.  Obviously sometimes we fail, but I can say that the issue of Jackie has not been contentious within the mod team since she returned.  We have all been in agreement.  It may be that our two recently resigned mods now take a different view, although there are I suspect other factors underlying that, but the fact remains that when they were mods we adopted the same approach towards Jackie.

I have to say I do not think it is entirely approprite to be discussing a forum member in this way.  I do not wish to stifle debate so I have answered your points but I hope we are able to draw a line under this now. 

 

Well before we DO draw that line, Neil, I feel I MUST say that I was under the impression that Jackie returned VERY much on probation. NONE of us was unaware of her past behaviours, either on OUR forum or the red and because of that I assumed -and I admit it was never stated categorically- that if her behaviour AGAIN became unacceptable, appropriate action could/would be taken.

[ngb1066]

Well before we DO draw that line, Neil, I feel I MUST say that I was under the impression that Jackie returned VERY much on probation. NONE of us was unaware of her past behaviours, either on OUR forum or the red and because of that I assumed -and I admit it was never stated categorically- that if her behaviour AGAIN became unacceptable, appropriate action could/would be taken.

Appropriate action was taken.  I banned her when she attacked you.

It is very easy to throw stones from the sidelines April, as you well know.

[Jane]

WHY would YOU suppose THAT?

Only that, IMO, it's equally plausible/implausible as that which you suggested.

[Jane]

Appropriate action was taken.  I banned her when she attacked you.

It is very easy to throw stones from the sidelines April, as you well know.

Since when, there's been a whole amalgam of inappropriate behaviours to others -I'll leave out how she threatened me and what she came perilously close to accusing Caroline of to extricate herself- which culminated in yesterday's debacle. Had it NOT occurred, we wouldn't be having this conversation.

[ngb1066]

Since when, there's been a whole amalgam of inappropriate behaviours to others -I'll leave out how she threatened me and what she came perilously close to accusing Caroline of to extricate herself- which culminated in yesterday's debacle. Had it NOT occurred, we wouldn't be having this conversation.

Just what are you trying to achieve April?  You of all people should know better.  You have been a Global Moderator here.  You know the admin/mod team get flack whatever decision is made in an individual case.  I have explained my reasons for not imposing a ban on Jackie.  I was entitled to make that decision and made it in good faith.  I have in the past been attacked by Jackie far more than you have ever been, so I am certainly not inclined to cut her much slack.  You have resigned as a mod so you are no longer helping.  I think the least you can do is not make my job more difficult.

[Neil]

hang on have missed somthing when did md say he thought jeremy was guilty.

He didn't.  He posted on here yesterday and at some point said "alleged MoJ". I have jumped to the conclusion that he believes Jeremy is guilty.  I can't direct you to the relevant post because it has been scrubbed off.

[Jane]

Just what are you trying to achieve April?  You of all people should know better.  You have been a Global Moderator here.  You know the admin/mod team get flack whatever decision is made in an individual case.  I have explained my reasons for not imposing a ban on Jackie.  I was entitled to make that decision and made it in good faith.  I have in the past been attacked by Jackie far more than you have ever been, so I am certainly not inclined to cut her much slack.  You have resigned as a mod so you are no longer helping.  I think the least you can do is not make my job more difficult.

Neil, I'm not trying to achieve anything save airing an opinion to which I'm entitled but which it seems you don't share. My apologies if you think I'm making your job more difficult.